interview and focus group research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Published: 05 October 2018

Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the digital age

P. Gill 1 &
J. Baillie 2

British Dental Journal volume 225 , pages 668–672 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

26k Accesses

48 Citations

20 Altmetric

Metrics details

Highlights that qualitative research is used increasingly in dentistry. Interviews and focus groups remain the most common qualitative methods of data collection.

Suggests the advent of digital technologies has transformed how qualitative research can now be undertaken.

Suggests interviews and focus groups can offer significant, meaningful insight into participants' experiences, beliefs and perspectives, which can help to inform developments in dental practice.

Qualitative research is used increasingly in dentistry, due to its potential to provide meaningful, in-depth insights into participants' experiences, perspectives, beliefs and behaviours. These insights can subsequently help to inform developments in dental practice and further related research. The most common methods of data collection used in qualitative research are interviews and focus groups. While these are primarily conducted face-to-face, the ongoing evolution of digital technologies, such as video chat and online forums, has further transformed these methods of data collection. This paper therefore discusses interviews and focus groups in detail, outlines how they can be used in practice, how digital technologies can further inform the data collection process, and what these methods can offer dentistry.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Interviews in the social sciences

Professionalism in dentistry: deconstructing common terminology

A review of technical and quality assessment considerations of audio-visual and web-conferencing focus groups in qualitative health research, introduction.

Traditionally, research in dentistry has primarily been quantitative in nature. 1 However, in recent years, there has been a growing interest in qualitative research within the profession, due to its potential to further inform developments in practice, policy, education and training. Consequently, in 2008, the British Dental Journal (BDJ) published a four paper qualitative research series, 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 to help increase awareness and understanding of this particular methodological approach.

Since the papers were originally published, two scoping reviews have demonstrated the ongoing proliferation in the use of qualitative research within the field of oral healthcare. 1 , 6 To date, the original four paper series continue to be well cited and two of the main papers remain widely accessed among the BDJ readership. 2 , 3 The potential value of well-conducted qualitative research to evidence-based practice is now also widely recognised by service providers, policy makers, funding bodies and those who commission, support and use healthcare research.

Besides increasing standalone use, qualitative methods are now also routinely incorporated into larger mixed method study designs, such as clinical trials, as they can offer additional, meaningful insights into complex problems that simply could not be provided by quantitative methods alone. Qualitative methods can also be used to further facilitate in-depth understanding of important aspects of clinical trial processes, such as recruitment. For example, Ellis et al . investigated why edentulous older patients, dissatisfied with conventional dentures, decline implant treatment, despite its established efficacy, and frequently refuse to participate in related randomised clinical trials, even when financial constraints are removed. 7 Through the use of focus groups in Canada and the UK, the authors found that fears of pain and potential complications, along with perceived embarrassment, exacerbated by age, are common reasons why older patients typically refuse dental implants. 7

The last decade has also seen further developments in qualitative research, due to the ongoing evolution of digital technologies. These developments have transformed how researchers can access and share information, communicate and collaborate, recruit and engage participants, collect and analyse data and disseminate and translate research findings. 8 Where appropriate, such technologies are therefore capable of extending and enhancing how qualitative research is undertaken. 9 For example, it is now possible to collect qualitative data via instant messaging, email or online/video chat, using appropriate online platforms.

These innovative approaches to research are therefore cost-effective, convenient, reduce geographical constraints and are often useful for accessing 'hard to reach' participants (for example, those who are immobile or socially isolated). 8 , 9 However, digital technologies are still relatively new and constantly evolving and therefore present a variety of pragmatic and methodological challenges. Furthermore, given their very nature, their use in many qualitative studies and/or with certain participant groups may be inappropriate and should therefore always be carefully considered. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a detailed explication regarding the use of digital technologies in qualitative research, insight is provided into how such technologies can be used to facilitate the data collection process in interviews and focus groups.

In light of such developments, it is perhaps therefore timely to update the main paper 3 of the original BDJ series. As with the previous publications, this paper has been purposely written in an accessible style, to enhance readability, particularly for those who are new to qualitative research. While the focus remains on the most common qualitative methods of data collection – interviews and focus groups – appropriate revisions have been made to provide a novel perspective, and should therefore be helpful to those who would like to know more about qualitative research. This paper specifically focuses on undertaking qualitative research with adult participants only.

Overview of qualitative research

Qualitative research is an approach that focuses on people and their experiences, behaviours and opinions. 10 , 11 The qualitative researcher seeks to answer questions of 'how' and 'why', providing detailed insight and understanding, 11 which quantitative methods cannot reach. 12 Within qualitative research, there are distinct methodologies influencing how the researcher approaches the research question, data collection and data analysis. 13 For example, phenomenological studies focus on the lived experience of individuals, explored through their description of the phenomenon. Ethnographic studies explore the culture of a group and typically involve the use of multiple methods to uncover the issues. 14

While methodology is the 'thinking tool', the methods are the 'doing tools'; 13 the ways in which data are collected and analysed. There are multiple qualitative data collection methods, including interviews, focus groups, observations, documentary analysis, participant diaries, photography and videography. Two of the most commonly used qualitative methods are interviews and focus groups, which are explored in this article. The data generated through these methods can be analysed in one of many ways, according to the methodological approach chosen. A common approach is thematic data analysis, involving the identification of themes and subthemes across the data set. Further information on approaches to qualitative data analysis has been discussed elsewhere. 1

Qualitative research is an evolving and adaptable approach, used by different disciplines for different purposes. Traditionally, qualitative data, specifically interviews, focus groups and observations, have been collected face-to-face with participants. In more recent years, digital technologies have contributed to the ongoing evolution of qualitative research. Digital technologies offer researchers different ways of recruiting participants and collecting data, and offer participants opportunities to be involved in research that is not necessarily face-to-face.

Research interviews are a fundamental qualitative research method 15 and are utilised across methodological approaches. Interviews enable the researcher to learn in depth about the perspectives, experiences, beliefs and motivations of the participant. 3 , 16 Examples include, exploring patients' perspectives of fear/anxiety triggers in dental treatment, 17 patients' experiences of oral health and diabetes, 18 and dental students' motivations for their choice of career. 19

Interviews may be structured, semi-structured or unstructured, 3 according to the purpose of the study, with less structured interviews facilitating a more in depth and flexible interviewing approach. 20 Structured interviews are similar to verbal questionnaires and are used if the researcher requires clarification on a topic; however they produce less in-depth data about a participant's experience. 3 Unstructured interviews may be used when little is known about a topic and involves the researcher asking an opening question; 3 the participant then leads the discussion. 20 Semi-structured interviews are commonly used in healthcare research, enabling the researcher to ask predetermined questions, 20 while ensuring the participant discusses issues they feel are important.

Interviews can be undertaken face-to-face or using digital methods when the researcher and participant are in different locations. Audio-recording the interview, with the consent of the participant, is essential for all interviews regardless of the medium as it enables accurate transcription; the process of turning the audio file into a word-for-word transcript. This transcript is the data, which the researcher then analyses according to the chosen approach.

Types of interview

Qualitative studies often utilise one-to-one, face-to-face interviews with research participants. This involves arranging a mutually convenient time and place to meet the participant, signing a consent form and audio-recording the interview. However, digital technologies have expanded the potential for interviews in research, enabling individuals to participate in qualitative research regardless of location.

Telephone interviews can be a useful alternative to face-to-face interviews and are commonly used in qualitative research. They enable participants from different geographical areas to participate and may be less onerous for participants than meeting a researcher in person. 15 A qualitative study explored patients' perspectives of dental implants and utilised telephone interviews due to the quality of the data that could be yielded. 21 The researcher needs to consider how they will audio record the interview, which can be facilitated by purchasing a recorder that connects directly to the telephone. One potential disadvantage of telephone interviews is the inability of the interviewer and researcher to see each other. This is resolved using software for audio and video calls online – such as Skype – to conduct interviews with participants in qualitative studies. Advantages of this approach include being able to see the participant if video calls are used, enabling observation of non-verbal communication, and the software can be free to use. However, participants are required to have a device and internet connection, as well as being computer literate, potentially limiting who can participate in the study. One qualitative study explored the role of dental hygienists in reducing oral health disparities in Canada. 22 The researcher conducted interviews using Skype, which enabled dental hygienists from across Canada to be interviewed within the research budget, accommodating the participants' schedules. 22

A less commonly used approach to qualitative interviews is the use of social virtual worlds. A qualitative study accessed a social virtual world – Second Life – to explore the health literacy skills of individuals who use social virtual worlds to access health information. 23 The researcher created an avatar and interview room, and undertook interviews with participants using voice and text methods. 23 This approach to recruitment and data collection enables individuals from diverse geographical locations to participate, while remaining anonymous if they wish. Furthermore, for interviews conducted using text methods, transcription of the interview is not required as the researcher can save the written conversation with the participant, with the participant's consent. However, the researcher and participant need to be familiar with how the social virtual world works to engage in an interview this way.

Conducting an interview

Ensuring informed consent before any interview is a fundamental aspect of the research process. Participants in research must be afforded autonomy and respect; consent should be informed and voluntary. 24 Individuals should have the opportunity to read an information sheet about the study, ask questions, understand how their data will be stored and used, and know that they are free to withdraw at any point without reprisal. The qualitative researcher should take written consent before undertaking the interview. In a face-to-face interview, this is straightforward: the researcher and participant both sign copies of the consent form, keeping one each. However, this approach is less straightforward when the researcher and participant do not meet in person. A recent protocol paper outlined an approach for taking consent for telephone interviews, which involved: audio recording the participant agreeing to each point on the consent form; the researcher signing the consent form and keeping a copy; and posting a copy to the participant. 25 This process could be replicated in other interview studies using digital methods.

There are advantages and disadvantages of using face-to-face and digital methods for research interviews. Ultimately, for both approaches, the quality of the interview is determined by the researcher. 16 Appropriate training and preparation are thus required. Healthcare professionals can use their interpersonal communication skills when undertaking a research interview, particularly questioning, listening and conversing. 3 However, the purpose of an interview is to gain information about the study topic, 26 rather than offering help and advice. 3 The researcher therefore needs to listen attentively to participants, enabling them to describe their experience without interruption. 3 The use of active listening skills also help to facilitate the interview. 14 Spradley outlined elements and strategies for research interviews, 27 which are a useful guide for qualitative researchers:

Greeting and explaining the project/interview

Asking descriptive (broad), structural (explore response to descriptive) and contrast (difference between) questions

Asymmetry between the researcher and participant talking

Expressing interest and cultural ignorance

Repeating, restating and incorporating the participant's words when asking questions

Creating hypothetical situations

Asking friendly questions

Knowing when to leave.

For semi-structured interviews, a topic guide (also called an interview schedule) is used to guide the content of the interview – an example of a topic guide is outlined in Box 1 . The topic guide, usually based on the research questions, existing literature and, for healthcare professionals, their clinical experience, is developed by the research team. The topic guide should include open ended questions that elicit in-depth information, and offer participants the opportunity to talk about issues important to them. This is vital in qualitative research where the researcher is interested in exploring the experiences and perspectives of participants. It can be useful for qualitative researchers to pilot the topic guide with the first participants, 10 to ensure the questions are relevant and understandable, and amending the questions if required.

Regardless of the medium of interview, the researcher must consider the setting of the interview. For face-to-face interviews, this could be in the participant's home, in an office or another mutually convenient location. A quiet location is preferable to promote confidentiality, enable the researcher and participant to concentrate on the conversation, and to facilitate accurate audio-recording of the interview. For interviews using digital methods the same principles apply: a quiet, private space where the researcher and participant feel comfortable and confident to participate in an interview.

Box 1: Example of a topic guide

Study focus: Parents' experiences of brushing their child's (aged 0–5) teeth

1. Can you tell me about your experience of cleaning your child's teeth?

How old was your child when you started cleaning their teeth?

Why did you start cleaning their teeth at that point?

How often do you brush their teeth?

What do you use to brush their teeth and why?

2. Could you explain how you find cleaning your child's teeth?

Do you find anything difficult?

What makes cleaning their teeth easier for you?

3. How has your experience of cleaning your child's teeth changed over time?

Has it become easier or harder?

Have you changed how often and how you clean their teeth? If so, why?

4. Could you describe how your child finds having their teeth cleaned?

What do they enjoy about having their teeth cleaned?

Is there anything they find upsetting about having their teeth cleaned?

5. Where do you look for information/advice about cleaning your child's teeth?

What did your health visitor tell you about cleaning your child's teeth? (If anything)

What has the dentist told you about caring for your child's teeth? (If visited)

Have any family members given you advice about how to clean your child's teeth? If so, what did they tell you? Did you follow their advice?

6. Is there anything else you would like to discuss about this?

Focus groups

A focus group is a moderated group discussion on a pre-defined topic, for research purposes. 28 , 29 While not aligned to a particular qualitative methodology (for example, grounded theory or phenomenology) as such, focus groups are used increasingly in healthcare research, as they are useful for exploring collective perspectives, attitudes, behaviours and experiences. Consequently, they can yield rich, in-depth data and illuminate agreement and inconsistencies 28 within and, where appropriate, between groups. Examples include public perceptions of dental implants and subsequent impact on help-seeking and decision making, 30 and general dental practitioners' views on patient safety in dentistry. 31

Focus groups can be used alone or in conjunction with other methods, such as interviews or observations, and can therefore help to confirm, extend or enrich understanding and provide alternative insights. 28 The social interaction between participants often results in lively discussion and can therefore facilitate the collection of rich, meaningful data. However, they are complex to organise and manage, due to the number of participants, and may also be inappropriate for exploring particularly sensitive issues that many participants may feel uncomfortable about discussing in a group environment.

Focus groups are primarily undertaken face-to-face but can now also be undertaken online, using appropriate technologies such as email, bulletin boards, online research communities, chat rooms, discussion forums, social media and video conferencing. 32 Using such technologies, data collection can also be synchronous (for example, online discussions in 'real time') or, unlike traditional face-to-face focus groups, asynchronous (for example, online/email discussions in 'non-real time'). While many of the fundamental principles of focus group research are the same, regardless of how they are conducted, a number of subtle nuances are associated with the online medium. 32 Some of which are discussed further in the following sections.

Focus group considerations

Some key considerations associated with face-to-face focus groups are: how many participants are required; should participants within each group know each other (or not) and how many focus groups are needed within a single study? These issues are much debated and there is no definitive answer. However, the number of focus groups required will largely depend on the topic area, the depth and breadth of data needed, the desired level of participation required 29 and the necessity (or not) for data saturation.

The optimum group size is around six to eight participants (excluding researchers) but can work effectively with between three and 14 participants. 3 If the group is too small, it may limit discussion, but if it is too large, it may become disorganised and difficult to manage. It is, however, prudent to over-recruit for a focus group by approximately two to three participants, to allow for potential non-attenders. For many researchers, particularly novice researchers, group size may also be informed by pragmatic considerations, such as the type of study, resources available and moderator experience. 28 Similar size and mix considerations exist for online focus groups. Typically, synchronous online focus groups will have around three to eight participants but, as the discussion does not happen simultaneously, asynchronous groups may have as many as 10–30 participants. 33

The topic area and potential group interaction should guide group composition considerations. Pre-existing groups, where participants know each other (for example, work colleagues) may be easier to recruit, have shared experiences and may enjoy a familiarity, which facilitates discussion and/or the ability to challenge each other courteously. 3 However, if there is a potential power imbalance within the group or if existing group norms and hierarchies may adversely affect the ability of participants to speak freely, then 'stranger groups' (that is, where participants do not already know each other) may be more appropriate. 34 , 35

Focus group management

Face-to-face focus groups should normally be conducted by two researchers; a moderator and an observer. 28 The moderator facilitates group discussion, while the observer typically monitors group dynamics, behaviours, non-verbal cues, seating arrangements and speaking order, which is essential for transcription and analysis. The same principles of informed consent, as discussed in the interview section, also apply to focus groups, regardless of medium. However, the consent process for online discussions will probably be managed somewhat differently. For example, while an appropriate participant information leaflet (and consent form) would still be required, the process is likely to be managed electronically (for example, via email) and would need to specifically address issues relating to technology (for example, anonymity and use, storage and access to online data). 32

The venue in which a face to face focus group is conducted should be of a suitable size, private, quiet, free from distractions and in a collectively convenient location. It should also be conducted at a time appropriate for participants, 28 as this is likely to promote attendance. As with interviews, the same ethical considerations apply (as discussed earlier). However, online focus groups may present additional ethical challenges associated with issues such as informed consent, appropriate access and secure data storage. Further guidance can be found elsewhere. 8 , 32

Before the focus group commences, the researchers should establish rapport with participants, as this will help to put them at ease and result in a more meaningful discussion. Consequently, researchers should introduce themselves, provide further clarity about the study and how the process will work in practice and outline the 'ground rules'. Ground rules are designed to assist, not hinder, group discussion and typically include: 3 , 28 , 29

Discussions within the group are confidential to the group

Only one person can speak at a time

All participants should have sufficient opportunity to contribute

There should be no unnecessary interruptions while someone is speaking

Everyone can be expected to be listened to and their views respected

Challenging contrary opinions is appropriate, but ridiculing is not.

Moderating a focus group requires considered management and good interpersonal skills to help guide the discussion and, where appropriate, keep it sufficiently focused. Avoid, therefore, participating, leading, expressing personal opinions or correcting participants' knowledge 3 , 28 as this may bias the process. A relaxed, interested demeanour will also help participants to feel comfortable and promote candid discourse. Moderators should also prevent the discussion being dominated by any one person, ensure differences of opinions are discussed fairly and, if required, encourage reticent participants to contribute. 3 Asking open questions, reflecting on significant issues, inviting further debate, probing responses accordingly, and seeking further clarification, as and where appropriate, will help to obtain sufficient depth and insight into the topic area.

Moderating online focus groups requires comparable skills, particularly if the discussion is synchronous, as the discussion may be dominated by those who can type proficiently. 36 It is therefore important that sufficient time and respect is accorded to those who may not be able to type as quickly. Asynchronous discussions are usually less problematic in this respect, as interactions are less instant. However, moderating an asynchronous discussion presents additional challenges, particularly if participants are geographically dispersed, as they may be online at different times. Consequently, the moderator will not always be present and the discussion may therefore need to occur over several days, which can be difficult to manage and facilitate and invariably requires considerable flexibility. 32 It is also worth recognising that establishing rapport with participants via online medium is often more challenging than via face-to-face and may therefore require additional time, skills, effort and consideration.

As with research interviews, focus groups should be guided by an appropriate interview schedule, as discussed earlier in the paper. For example, the schedule will usually be informed by the review of the literature and study aims, and will merely provide a topic guide to help inform subsequent discussions. To provide a verbatim account of the discussion, focus groups must be recorded, using an audio-recorder with a good quality multi-directional microphone. While videotaping is possible, some participants may find it obtrusive, 3 which may adversely affect group dynamics. The use (or not) of a video recorder, should therefore be carefully considered.

At the end of the focus group, a few minutes should be spent rounding up and reflecting on the discussion. 28 Depending on the topic area, it is possible that some participants may have revealed deeply personal issues and may therefore require further help and support, such as a constructive debrief or possibly even referral on to a relevant third party. It is also possible that some participants may feel that the discussion did not adequately reflect their views and, consequently, may no longer wish to be associated with the study. 28 Such occurrences are likely to be uncommon, but should they arise, it is important to further discuss any concerns and, if appropriate, offer them the opportunity to withdraw (including any data relating to them) from the study. Immediately after the discussion, researchers should compile notes regarding thoughts and ideas about the focus group, which can assist with data analysis and, if appropriate, any further data collection.

Qualitative research is increasingly being utilised within dental research to explore the experiences, perspectives, motivations and beliefs of participants. The contributions of qualitative research to evidence-based practice are increasingly being recognised, both as standalone research and as part of larger mixed-method studies, including clinical trials. Interviews and focus groups remain commonly used data collection methods in qualitative research, and with the advent of digital technologies, their utilisation continues to evolve. However, digital methods of qualitative data collection present additional methodological, ethical and practical considerations, but also potentially offer considerable flexibility to participants and researchers. Consequently, regardless of format, qualitative methods have significant potential to inform important areas of dental practice, policy and further related research.

Gussy M, Dickson-Swift V, Adams J . A scoping review of qualitative research in peer-reviewed dental publications. Int J Dent Hygiene 2013; 11 : 174–179.

Article Google Scholar

Burnard P, Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Analysing and presenting qualitative data. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 429–432.

Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 291–295.

Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B . Conducting qualitative interviews with school children in dental research. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 371–374.

Stewart K, Gill P, Chadwick B, Treasure E . Qualitative research in dentistry. Br Dent J 2008; 204 : 235–239.

Masood M, Thaliath E, Bower E, Newton J . An appraisal of the quality of published qualitative dental research. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011; 39 : 193–203.

Ellis J, Levine A, Bedos C et al. Refusal of implant supported mandibular overdentures by elderly patients. Gerodontology 2011; 28 : 62–68.

Macfarlane S, Bucknall T . Digital Technologies in Research. In Gerrish K, Lathlean J (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . 7th edition. pp. 71–86. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell; 2015.

Google Scholar

Lee R, Fielding N, Blank G . Online Research Methods in the Social Sciences: An Editorial Introduction. In Fielding N, Lee R, Blank G (editors) The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods . pp. 3–16. London: Sage Publications; 2016.

Creswell J . Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.

Guest G, Namey E, Mitchell M . Qualitative research: Defining and designing In Guest G, Namey E, Mitchell M (editors) Collecting Qualitative Data: A Field Manual For Applied Research . pp. 1–40. London: Sage Publications, 2013.

Chapter Google Scholar

Pope C, Mays N . Qualitative research: Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311 : 42–45.

Giddings L, Grant B . A Trojan Horse for positivism? A critique of mixed methods research. Adv Nurs Sci 2007; 30 : 52–60.

Hammersley M, Atkinson P . Ethnography: Principles in Practice . London: Routledge, 1995.

Oltmann S . Qualitative interviews: A methodological discussion of the interviewer and respondent contexts Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2016; 17 : Art. 15.

Patton M . Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.

Wang M, Vinall-Collier K, Csikar J, Douglas G . A qualitative study of patients' views of techniques to reduce dental anxiety. J Dent 2017; 66 : 45–51.

Lindenmeyer A, Bowyer V, Roscoe J, Dale J, Sutcliffe P . Oral health awareness and care preferences in patients with diabetes: a qualitative study. Fam Pract 2013; 30 : 113–118.

Gallagher J, Clarke W, Wilson N . Understanding the motivation: a qualitative study of dental students' choice of professional career. Eur J Dent Educ 2008; 12 : 89–98.

Tod A . Interviewing. In Gerrish K, Lacey A (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Grey E, Harcourt D, O'Sullivan D, Buchanan H, Kipatrick N . A qualitative study of patients' motivations and expectations for dental implants. Br Dent J 2013; 214 : 10.1038/sj.bdj.2012.1178.

Farmer J, Peressini S, Lawrence H . Exploring the role of the dental hygienist in reducing oral health disparities in Canada: A qualitative study. Int J Dent Hygiene 2017; 10.1111/idh.12276.

McElhinney E, Cheater F, Kidd L . Undertaking qualitative health research in social virtual worlds. J Adv Nurs 2013; 70 : 1267–1275.

Health Research Authority. UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research. Available at https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/uk-policy-framework-health-social-care-research/ (accessed September 2017).

Baillie J, Gill P, Courtenay P . Knowledge, understanding and experiences of peritonitis among patients, and their families, undertaking peritoneal dialysis: A mixed methods study protocol. J Adv Nurs 2017; 10.1111/jan.13400.

Kvale S . Interviews . Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 1996.

Spradley J . The Ethnographic Interview . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.

Goodman C, Evans C . Focus Groups. In Gerrish K, Lathlean J (editors) The Research Process in Nursing . pp. 401–412. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2015.

Shaha M, Wenzell J, Hill E . Planning and conducting focus group research with nurses. Nurse Res 2011; 18 : 77–87.

Wang G, Gao X, Edward C . Public perception of dental implants: a qualitative study. J Dent 2015; 43 : 798–805.

Bailey E . Contemporary views of dental practitioners' on patient safety. Br Dent J 2015; 219 : 535–540.

Abrams K, Gaiser T . Online Focus Groups. In Field N, Lee R, Blank G (editors) The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods . pp. 435–450. London: Sage Publications, 2016.

Poynter R . The Handbook of Online and Social Media Research . West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

Kevern J, Webb C . Focus groups as a tool for critical social research in nurse education. Nurse Educ Today 2001; 21 : 323–333.

Kitzinger J, Barbour R . Introduction: The Challenge and Promise of Focus Groups. In Barbour R S K J (editor) Developing Focus Group Research . pp. 1–20. London: Sage Publications, 1999.

Krueger R, Casey M . Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; 2009.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Senior Lecturer (Adult Nursing), School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University,

Lecturer (Adult Nursing) and RCBC Wales Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University,

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Gill .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gill, P., Baillie, J. Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the digital age. Br Dent J 225 , 668–672 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815

Download citation

Accepted : 02 July 2018

Published : 05 October 2018

Issue Date : 12 October 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Translating brand reputation into equity from the stakeholder’s theory: an approach to value creation based on consumer’s perception & interactions.

Olukorede Adewole

International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility (2024)

Perceptions and beliefs of community gatekeepers about genomic risk information in African cleft research

Abimbola M. Oladayo
Oluwakemi Odukoya
Azeez Butali

BMC Public Health (2024)

Assessment of women’s needs, wishes and preferences regarding interprofessional guidance on nutrition in pregnancy – a qualitative study

Merle Ebinghaus
Caroline Johanna Agricola
Birgit-Christiane Zyriax

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2024)

‘Baby mamas’ in Urban Ghana: an exploratory qualitative study on the factors influencing serial fathering among men in Accra, Ghana

Rosemond Akpene Hiadzi
Jemima Akweley Agyeman
Godwin Banafo Akrong

Reproductive Health (2023)

Revolutionising dental technologies: a qualitative study on dental technicians’ perceptions of Artificial intelligence integration

Galvin Sim Siang Lin
Yook Shiang Ng
Kah Hoay Chua

BMC Oral Health (2023)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Chapter 12. Focus Groups

Introduction.

Focus groups are a particular and special form of interviewing in which the interview asks focused questions of a group of persons, optimally between five and eight. This group can be close friends, family members, or complete strangers. They can have a lot in common or nothing in common. Unlike one-on-one interviews, which can probe deeply, focus group questions are narrowly tailored (“focused”) to a particular topic and issue and, with notable exceptions, operate at the shallow end of inquiry. For example, market researchers use focus groups to find out why groups of people choose one brand of product over another. Because focus groups are often used for commercial purposes, they sometimes have a bit of a stigma among researchers. This is unfortunate, as the focus group is a helpful addition to the qualitative researcher’s toolkit. Focus groups explicitly use group interaction to assist in the data collection. They are particularly useful as supplements to one-on-one interviews or in data triangulation. They are sometimes used to initiate areas of inquiry for later data collection methods. This chapter describes the main forms of focus groups, lays out some key differences among those forms, and provides guidance on how to manage focus group interviews.

Focus Groups: What Are They and When to Use Them

As interviews, focus groups can be helpfully distinguished from one-on-one interviews. The purpose of conducting a focus group is not to expand the number of people one interviews: the focus group is a different entity entirely. The focus is on the group and its interactions and evaluations rather than on the individuals in that group. If you want to know how individuals understand their lives and their individual experiences, it is best to ask them individually. If you want to find out how a group forms a collective opinion about something (whether a product or an event or an experience), then conducting a focus group is preferable. The power of focus groups resides in their being both focused and oriented to the group . They are best used when you are interested in the shared meanings of a group or how people discuss a topic publicly or when you want to observe the social formation of evaluations. The interaction of the group members is an asset in this method of data collection. If your questions would not benefit from group interaction, this is a good indicator that you should probably use individual interviews (chapter 11). Avoid using focus groups when you are interested in personal information or strive to uncover deeply buried beliefs or personal narratives. In general, you want to avoid using focus groups when the subject matter is polarizing, as people are less likely to be honest in a group setting. There are a few exceptions, such as when you are conducting focus groups with people who are not strangers and/or you are attempting to probe deeply into group beliefs and evaluations. But caution is warranted in these cases. [1]

As with interviewing in general, there are many forms of focus groups. Focus groups are widely used by nonresearchers, so it is important to distinguish these uses from the research focus group. Businesses routinely employ marketing focus groups to test out products or campaigns. Jury consultants employ “mock” jury focus groups, testing out legal case strategies in advance of actual trials. Organizations of various kinds use focus group interviews for program evaluation (e.g., to gauge the effectiveness of a diversity training workshop). The research focus group has many similarities with all these uses but is specifically tailored to a research (rather than applied) interest. The line between application and research use can be blurry, however. To take the case of evaluating the effectiveness of a diversity training workshop, the same interviewer may be conducting focus group interviews both to provide specific actionable feedback for the workshop leaders (this is the application aspect) and to learn more about how people respond to diversity training (an interesting research question with theoretically generalizable results).

When forming a focus group, there are two different strategies for inclusion. Diversity focus groups include people with diverse perspectives and experiences. This helps the researcher identify commonalities across this diversity and/or note interactions across differences. What kind of diversity to capture depends on the research question, but care should be taken to ensure that those participating are not set up for attack from other participants. This is why many warn against diversity focus groups, especially around politically sensitive topics. The other strategy is to build a convergence focus group , which includes people with similar perspectives and experiences. These are particularly helpful for identifying shared patterns and group consensus. The important thing is to closely consider who will be invited to participate and what the composition of the group will be in advance. Some review of sampling techniques (see chapter 5) may be helpful here.

Moderating a focus group can be a challenge (more on this below). For this reason, confining your group to no more than eight participants is recommended. You probably want at least four persons to capture group interaction. Fewer than four participants can also make it more difficult for participants to remain (relatively) anonymous—there is less of a group in which to hide. There are exceptions to these recommendations. You might want to conduct a focus group with a naturally occurring group, as in the case of a family of three, a social club of ten, or a program of fifteen. When the persons know one another, the problems of too few for anonymity don’t apply, and although ten to fifteen can be unwieldy to manage, there are strategies to make this possible. If you really are interested in this group’s dynamic (not just a set of random strangers’ dynamic), then you will want to include all its members or as many as are willing and able to participate.

There are many benefits to conducting focus groups, the first of which is their interactivity. Participants can make comparisons, can elaborate on what has been voiced by another, and can even check one another, leading to real-time reevaluations. This last benefit is one reason they are sometimes employed specifically for consciousness raising or building group cohesion. This form of data collection has an activist application when done carefully and appropriately. It can be fun, especially for the participants. Additionally, what does not come up in a focus group, especially when expected by the researcher, can be very illuminating.

Many of these benefits do incur costs, however. The multiplicity of voices in a good focus group interview can be overwhelming both to moderate and later to transcribe. Because of the focused nature, deep probing is not possible (or desirable). You might only get superficial thinking or what people are willing to put out there publicly. If that is what you are interested in, good. If you want deeper insight, you probably will not get that here. Relatedly, extreme views are often suppressed, and marginal viewpoints are unspoken or, if spoken, derided. You will get the majority group consensus and very little of minority viewpoints. Because people will be engaged with one another, there is the possibility of cut-off sentences, making it even more likely to hear broad brush themes and not detailed specifics. There really is very little opportunity for specific follow-up questions to individuals. Reading over a transcript, you may be frustrated by avenues of inquiry that were foreclosed early.

Some people expect that conducting focus groups is an efficient form of data collection. After all, you get to hear from eight people instead of just one in the same amount of time! But this is a serious misunderstanding. What you hear in a focus group is one single group interview or discussion. It is not the same thing at all as conducting eight single one-hour interviews. Each focus group counts as “one.” Most likely, you will need to conduct several focus groups, and you can design these as comparisons to one another. For example, the American Sociological Association (ASA) Task Force on First-Generation and Working-Class Persons in Sociology began its study of the impact of class in sociology by conducting five separate focus groups with different groups of sociologists: graduate students, faculty (in general), community college faculty, faculty of color, and a racially diverse group of students and faculty. Even though the total number of participants was close to forty, the “number” of cases was five. It is highly recommended that when employing focus groups, you plan on composing more than one and at least three. This allows you to take note of and potentially discount findings from a group with idiosyncratic dynamics, such as where a particularly dominant personality silences all other voices. In other words, putting all your eggs into a single focus group basket is not a good idea.

How to Conduct a Focus Group Interview/Discussion

Advance preparations.

Once you have selected your focus groups and set a date and time, there are a few things you will want to plan out before meeting.

As with interviews, you begin by creating an interview (or discussion) guide. Where a good one-on-one interview guide should include ten to twelve main topics with possible prompts and follow-ups (see the example provided in chapter 11), the focus group guide should be more narrowly tailored to a single focus or topic area. For example, a focus might be “How students coped with online learning during the pandemic,” and a series of possible questions would be drafted that would help prod participants to think about and discuss this topic. These questions or discussion prompts can be creative and may include stimulus materials (watching a video or hearing a story) or posing hypotheticals. For example, Cech ( 2021 ) has a great hypothetical, asking what a fictional character should do: keep his boring job in computers or follow his passion and open a restaurant. You can ask a focus group this question and see what results—how the group comes to define a “good job,” what questions they ask about the hypothetical (How boring is his job really? Does he hate getting up in the morning, or is it more of an everyday tedium? What kind of financial support will he have if he quits? Does he even know how to run a restaurant?), and how they reach a consensus or create clear patterns of disagreement are all interesting findings that can be generated through this technique.

As with the above example (“What should Joe do?”), it is best to keep the questions you ask simple and easily understood by everyone. Thinking about the sequence of the questions/prompts is important, just as it is in conducting any interviews.

Avoid embarrassing questions. Always leave an out for the “I have a friend who X” response rather than pushing people to divulge personal information. Asking “How do you think students coped?” is better than “How did you cope?” Chances are, some participants will begin talking about themselves without you directly asking them to do so, but allowing impersonal responses here is good. The group itself will determine how deep and how personal it wants to go. This is not the time or place to push anyone out of their comfort zone!

Of course, people have different levels of comfort talking publicly about certain topics. You will have provided detailed information to your focus group participants beforehand and secured consent. But even so, the conversation may take a turn that makes someone uncomfortable. Be on the lookout for this, and remind everyone of their ability to opt out—to stay silent or to leave if necessary. Rather than call attention to anyone in this way, you also want to let everyone know they are free to walk around—to get up and get coffee (more on this below) or use the restroom or just step out of the room to take a call. Of course, you don’t really want anyone to do any of these things, and chances are everyone will stay seated during the hour, but you should leave this “out” for those who need it.

Have copies of consent forms and any supplemental questionnaire (e.g., demographic information) you are using prepared in advance. Ask a friend or colleague to assist you on the day of the focus group. They can be responsible for making sure the recording equipment is functioning and may even take some notes on body language while you are moderating the discussion. Order food (coffee or snacks) for the group. This is important! Having refreshments will be appreciated by your participants and really damps down the anxiety level. Bring name tags and pens. Find a quiet welcoming space to convene. Often this is a classroom where you move chairs into a circle, but public libraries often have meeting rooms that are ideal places for community members to meet. Be sure that the space allows for food.

Researcher Note

When I was designing my research plan for studying activist groups, I consulted one of the best qualitative researchers I knew, my late friend Raphael Ezekiel, author of The Racist Mind . He looked at my plan to hand people demographic surveys at the end of the meetings I planned to observe and said, “This methodology is missing one crucial thing.” “What?” I asked breathlessly, anticipating some technical insider tip. “Chocolate!” he answered. “They’ll be tired, ready to leave when you ask them to fill something out. Offer an incentive, and they will stick around.” It worked! As the meetings began to wind down, I would whip some bags of chocolate candies out of my bag. Everyone would stare, and I’d say they were my thank-you gift to anyone who filled out my survey. Once I learned to include some sugar-free candies for diabetics, my typical response rate was 100 percent. (And it gave me an additional class-culture data point by noticing who chose which brand; sure enough, Lindt balls went faster at majority professional-middle-class groups, and Hershey’s minibars went faster at majority working-class groups.)

—Betsy Leondar-Wright, author of Missing Class , coauthor of The Color of Wealth , associate professor of sociology at Lasell University, and coordinator of staffing at the Mission Project for Class Action

During the Focus Group

As people arrive, greet them warmly, and make sure you get a signed consent form (if not in advance). If you are using name tags, ask them to fill one out and wear it. Let them get food and find a seat and do a little chatting, as they might wish. Once seated, many focus group moderators begin with a relevant icebreaker. This could be simple introductions that have some meaning or connection to the focus. In the case of the ASA task force focus groups discussed above, we asked people to introduce themselves and where they were working/studying (“Hi, I’m Allison, and I am a professor at Oregon State University”). You will also want to introduce yourself and the study in simple terms. They’ve already read the consent form, but you would be surprised at how many people ignore the details there or don’t remember them. Briefly talking about the study and then letting people ask any follow-up questions lays a good foundation for a successful discussion, as it reminds everyone what the point of the event is.

Focus groups should convene for between forty-five and ninety minutes. Of course, you must tell the participants the time you have chosen in advance, and you must promptly end at the time allotted. Do not make anyone nervous by extending the time. Let them know at the outset that you will adhere to this timeline. This should reduce the nervous checking of phones and watches and wall clocks as the end time draws near.

Set ground rules and expectations for the group discussion. My preference is to begin with a general question and let whoever wants to answer it do so, but other moderators expect each person to answer most questions. Explain how much cross-talk you will permit (or encourage). Again, my preference is to allow the group to pick up the ball and run with it, so I will sometimes keep my head purposefully down so that they engage with one another rather than me, but I have seen other moderators take a much more engaged position. Just be clear at the outset about what your expectations are. You may or may not want to explain how the group should deal with those who would dominate the conversation. Sometimes, simply stating at the outset that all voices should be heard is enough to create a more egalitarian discourse. Other times, you will have to actively step in to manage (moderate) the exchange to allow more voices to be heard. Finally, let people know they are free to get up to get more coffee or leave the room as they need (if you are OK with this). You may ask people to refrain from using their phones during the duration of the discussion. That is up to you too.

Either before or after the introductions (your call), begin recording the discussion with their collective permission and knowledge . If you have brought a friend or colleague to assist you (as you should), have them attend to the recording. Explain the role of your colleague to the group (e.g., they will monitor the recording and will take short notes throughout to help you when you read the transcript later; they will be a silent observer).

Once the focus group gets going, it may be difficult to keep up. You will need to make a lot of quick decisions during the discussion about whether to intervene or let it go unguided. Only you really care about the research question or topic, so only you will really know when the discussion is truly off topic. However you handle this, keep your “participation” to a minimum. According to Lune and Berg ( 2018:95 ), the moderator’s voice should show up in the transcript no more than 10 percent of the time. By the way, you should also ask your research assistant to take special note of the “intensity” of the conversation, as this may be lost in a transcript. If there are people looking overly excited or tapping their feet with impatience or nodding their heads in unison, you want some record of this for future analysis.

I’m not sure why this stuck with me, but I thought it would be interesting to share. When I was reviewing my plan for conducting focus groups with one of my committee members, he suggested that I give the participants their gift cards first. The incentive for participating in the study was a gift card of their choice, and typical processes dictate that participants must complete the study in order to receive their gift card. However, my committee member (who is Native himself) suggested I give it at the beginning. As a qualitative researcher, you build trust with the people you engage with. You are asking them to share their stories with you, their intimate moments, their vulnerabilities, their time. Not to mention that Native people are familiar with being academia’s subjects of interest with little to no benefit to be returned to them. To show my appreciation, one of the things I could do was to give their gifts at the beginning, regardless of whether or not they completed participating.

—Susanna Y. Park, PhD, mixed-methods researcher in public health and author of “How Native Women Seek Support as Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: A Mixed-Methods Study”

After the Focus Group

Your “data” will be either fieldnotes taken during the focus group or, more desirably, transcripts of the recorded exchange. If you do not have permission to record the focus group discussion, make sure you take very clear notes during the exchange and then spend a few hours afterward filling them in as much as possible, creating a rich memo to yourself about what you saw and heard and experienced, including any notes about body language and interactions. Ideally, however, you will have recorded the discussion. It is still a good idea to spend some time immediately after the conclusion of the discussion to write a memo to yourself with all the things that may not make it into the written record (e.g., body language and interactions). This is also a good time to journal about or create a memo with your initial researcher reactions to what you saw, noting anything of particular interest that you want to come back to later on (e.g., “It was interesting that no one thought Joe should quit his job, but in the other focus group, half of the group did. I wonder if this has something to do with the fact that all the participants were first-generation college students. I should pay attention to class background here.”).

Please thank each of your participants in a follow-up email or text. Let them know you appreciated their time and invite follow-up questions or comments.

One of the difficult things about focus group transcripts is keeping speakers distinct. Eventually, you are going to be using pseudonyms for any publication, but for now, you probably want to know who said what. You can assign speaker numbers (“Speaker 1,” “Speaker 2”) and connect those identifications with particular demographic information in a separate document. Remember to clearly separate actual identifications (as with consent forms) to prevent breaches of anonymity. If you cannot identify a speaker when transcribing, you can write, “Unidentified Speaker.” Once you have your transcript(s) and memos and fieldnotes, you can begin analyzing the data (chapters 18 and 19).

Advanced: Focus Groups on Sensitive Topics

Throughout this chapter, I have recommended against raising sensitive topics in focus group discussions. As an introvert myself, I find the idea of discussing personal topics in a group disturbing, and I tend to avoid conducting these kinds of focus groups. And yet I have actually participated in focus groups that do discuss personal information and consequently have been of great value to me as a participant (and researcher) because of this. There are even some researchers who believe this is the best use of focus groups ( de Oliveira 2011 ). For example, Jordan et al. ( 2007 ) argue that focus groups should be considered most useful for illuminating locally sanctioned ways of talking about sensitive issues. So although I do not recommend the beginning qualitative researcher dive into deep waters before they can swim, this section will provide some guidelines for conducting focus groups on sensitive topics. To my mind, these are a minimum set of guidelines to follow when dealing with sensitive topics.

First, be transparent about the place of sensitive topics in your focus group. If the whole point of your focus group is to discuss something sensitive, such as how women gain support after traumatic sexual assault events, make this abundantly clear in your consent form and recruiting materials. It is never appropriate to blindside participants with sensitive or threatening topics .

Second, create a confidentiality form (figure 12.2) for each participant to sign. These forms carry no legal weight, but they do create an expectation of confidentiality for group members.

In order to respect the privacy of all participants in [insert name of study here], all parties are asked to read and sign the statement below. If you have any reason not to sign, please discuss this with [insert your name], the researcher of this study, I, ________________________, agree to maintain the confidentiality of the information discussed by all participants and researchers during the focus group discussion.

Signature: _____________________________ Date: _____________________

Researcher’s Signature:___________________ Date:______________________

Figure 12.2 Confidentiality Agreement of Focus Group Participants

Third, provide abundant space for opting out of the discussion. Participants are, of course, always permitted to refrain from answering a question or to ask for the recording to be stopped. It is important that focus group members know they have these rights during the group discussion as well. And if you see a person who is looking uncomfortable or like they want to hide, you need to step in affirmatively and remind everyone of these rights.

Finally, if things go “off the rails,” permit yourself the ability to end the focus group. Debrief with each member as necessary.

Try Qualtrics for free

The definitive guide to focus groups.

15 min read Interested in focus groups but not sure where to start? Use our definitive guide to grasp the essentials and learn how you can leverage focus groups to better know your audience.

Written by : Will Webster

Fact Checked by : Karen Goldstein

What is a focus group?

Focus groups are a type of qualitative research that bring together a small group of people representing a target audience. In a conversation usually guided by a moderator, this group will discuss a specific topic, products, services or concepts in a controlled environment.

The purpose of focus groups is to have a relaxed, open-ended conversation to gain insights that may not be possible from a survey or individual interview. They’re a very valuable tool in the research toolkit.

Free eBook: 2024 global market research trends report

focus group collaborating and sharing thoughts

Focus group roles

In any focus group there are typically three main roles being played.

When should a focus group be used?

Focus groups are a very popular type of research method that’s used in virtually every sector, from tech to academia, and marketing to political science.

Focus groups are a great choice if you want to go deep into a particular topic. If surveys are a brilliant tool for understanding what someone feels about something, focus groups help us to explore why – which is why the two work great in tandem. Focus groups give us an opportunity to capture the human element – the emotions and non-verbal cues that numbers often miss – and help us to explore underlying motivations.

Here are some of the most common focus group use cases.

New product or concept testing

If you’ve got a new product or concept in the works, a focus group can provide valuable feedback before you launch it into the market. You can get a sense of how people might react to it, what they like or dislike, and any improvements they might suggest.

In fact, focus groups are often used by brands to improve on and even co-create products in real time, with concepts discussed and iterated over the course of the session.

Understanding customers better

Focus groups are a great market research tool to help you better understand why customers think and behave the way they do. If, for example, a product isn’t selling as expected, a focus group with your customers can shine light on their barriers to purchase.

Beyond current customers, businesses can also use focus groups to better understand new prospects and bring their target customer segments to life.

Marketing and advertising

Before you invest a lot of money into a marketing or advertising campaign, you could use a focus group to test your messaging and visuals. Once any tweaks are made, you should be left with a campaign that will better resonate with your target audience.

Exploratory research

Focus groups are great when you don’t know what you don’t know. If you’re entering a new market or targeting a new customer segment, they can help you explore and understand the landscape.

When quantitative data isn’t enough

Sometimes, numbers and stats don’t tell the whole story. If you have quantitative data but want to delve deeper into the ‘why’ and ‘how’, focus groups are a great way to do that.

Focus groups can provide rich, qualitative insights that quantitative research methods might miss. But it’s important to remember that they aren’t right for every situation.

If you need to make definitive conclusions about a large population, a quantitative survey will be a better option. The same applies if you’re focusing on sensitive topics that people may not feel comfortable discussing in a group setting, such as financial or health matters.

At the end of the day, the best research method for your use case really depends on your specific goals, who you’re collecting insights from and the nature of the information you’re seeking.

Types of focus groups

Focus groups can take different forms depending on the objectives of the study, the participants, and the nature of the topic being discussed. Ranging from the common to the seldom used, here are the different types of focus group methods.

One-way focus groups

The classic focus group format: a moderator leads a discussion among a group of participants about a particular topic.

Two-way focus groups

Here one group watches another , observing the discussion, interactions and conclusions. This format is used to provide additional insights and a deeper understanding of the topic.

Dual-moderator focus groups

A focus group with two moderators. One ensures the session runs along smoothly; the other makes sure all topics are covered. The aim of this format is to create a more comprehensive discussion.

Dueling-moderator focus groups

Like dual moderator focus groups in that there are two moderators, but here the moderators take opposing viewpoints on the topic. The purpose of this format is to help the participants consider and discuss a wider range of points.

Respondent-moderator focus groups

Where one respondent – or several – plays the role of moderator. This format counters the unintentional bias that can come from a single moderator, and encourages variety in the discussion,

Mini focus groups, dyads and triads

Exactly as they sound, mini focus groups involve fewer participants than usual. These smaller groups – typically made up of 4 to 5 participants – are well suited to complex topics.

There are also focus groups involving two participants and a moderator – known as dyads – and groups with three participants and a moderator, which are known as triads.

Remote focus groups

An online focus group. This format is a great way to give your research a wider geographical reach and access a greater pool of people.

How to run a focus group: Step-by-step guide

The focus groups that generate the best insights are often those that are planned best. Here’s our guide for every step of the process.

1. Research and define your goal

The first step is to identify what you want to learn from the focus group. Are you testing a new product or exploring consumer behavior? Maybe you’re seeking feedback on a marketing campaign or getting to know a new target market?

2. Choose a moderator

If planning is the key ingredient for a great focus group, a good moderator is a close second.

The moderator is the most important person in the room, and needs to be someone who can facilitate discussions, manage a group of strangers, and keep the conversation on track and be able to elicit the feedback desired..

3. Choose a location

The most important consideration here is how you create a comfortable, non-judgmental environment where participants feel safe to share their thoughts and opinions.

And you also need to answer the big question: in-person or online? In-person sessions typically enable better conversation and group chemistry, while online focus groups give you access to a much bigger, broader pool of potential participants.

4. Recruit the right participants

Next, work out who you need to participate in the focus group to reach your goal. Whatever your target audience is, you want the respondents to meet the baseline criteria – noting that the ideal size for a focus group is typically between 6 and 8 participants, and that none of your participants should know each other.

Once you’ve worked out who you want there, you need to recruit them. This is often done via ads, invitations to your CMS database or a third party. Incentives, like cash or gift cards, are typically used to encourage participation.

5. Create a discussion guide

In tandem with step four, it’s time for the moderator to develop a document that will guide the discussion. Based on your research goal or goals, this guide should include a list of focus group questions or topics you want to cover during the session, and strike a good balance between structured and flexible – so you can gather the data you need while not discouraging spontaneous conversation.

6. Conduct the focus group

The big day has arrived. With everything in place, all you need to do is make sure that every participant is given an opportunity to speak.

Don’t forget to record the focus group (with the participants’ consent) and make efforts to capture non-verbal cues from participants.

7. Debrief and iterate

Debrief after each session to understand your key findings, and if necessary, edit the discussion guide for future focus groups based on your learnings and observations so far.

8. Analyse and report on the findings

Now’s time to transcribe your recordings and analyse them for key themes and insights. The aim here is to interpret your findings in the context of your initial goal.

It’s best practice to present your key focus group results and findings in a report, alongside recommendations based on them.

How many people should be in a focus group?

The ideal size of a focus group is generally said to fall between 6 and 8 participants .Why is this the sweet spot? Because it’s small enough to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and share their views, but large enough to provide a variety of perspectives.

That said, the goal of your research and the topic(s) you’re focusing on can change things. For instance, if the topic is particularly complex or sensitive, a smaller group may be better.

If you have a larger pool of potential focus group attendees, best practice would be to split them up and conduct multiple focus groups, instead of one focus group with too many people.

Focus groups vs in-depth interviews

Focus groups and in-depth interviews are two of the most popular forms of qualitative research . They do, however, differ in what they can bring to your research – which is why they’re often used in tandem to answer a single research question.

The benefits of focus groups over in-depth interviews

Focus groups are designed to encourage interaction between a collection of people, often revealing insights that may not surface in a one-on-one conversation. They give researchers an opportunity to observe group dynamics and how individuals influence each other and can be influenced themselves.

A big advantage of focus groups is their efficiency – in one session you can gather a broad range of insights from multiple individuals.

The benefits of in-depth interviews over focus groups

In-depth interviews are one-on-one discussions between a researcher and participant.

Whereas focus groups are by definition a group discussion, in-depth interviews provide a more personal and detailed exploration of an individual’s perspectives and experiences. Because of this, interviews are great for sensitive or personal topics, and the interviewee won’t be as influenced by others when giving their honest opinions – which is a risk with focus groups.

Another benefit of in-depth interviews is that the researcher/interviewer has greater control over the conversation, which gives you a greater chance of covering all topics thoroughly.

Advantages and disadvantages of focus groups

Like any research method, focus groups come with a variety of pros and cons that are typically associated with any type of qualitative research.

Advantages of focus groups

They give you qualitative insights . Exploring the ‘why’ behind people’s behaviors, views and decisions
They enable interactive discussions . Often leading to deeper insights as participants explore topics and ideas
They give immediate findings . Observing real-time reactions means you can quickly implement them on a concept, product or campaign
You can capture non-verbal data . Non-verbal cues and body language often give a further layer of insight into participants’ attitudes and feelings
You have real-time flexibility . The moderator can steer the conversation to explore new points and topics if they arise

Disadvantages of focus groups

Your sample size is small . And less likely to represent how the total population feels
You’re at risk of conforming beliefs . Meaning that participants may change what they’re saying to match the majority opinion or the loudest voice
They require a skilled moderator . Your findings could be a lot less valuable without one
Data analysis can be time consuming . If you’re hosting multiple groups, transcribing and deciphering data can be labour-intensive and complex
They can be expensive (especially if done in person) . You may need to pay for participant travel, accommodation and incentives, venue rent and even moderator fees

Related resources

Market intelligence 10 min read, marketing insights 11 min read.

Analysis & Reporting

Thematic Analysis 11 min read

Ethnographic research 11 min read, post event survey questions 10 min read, data saturation in qualitative research 8 min read, how to determine sample size 12 min read, request demo.

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?

- Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

Access provided by Google Indexer
My email alerts
BMA member login
Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

Advanced search
Search responses
Search blogs
Qualitative Research:...

Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups

Related content
Peer review
Jenny Kitzinger , research fellow a
a Glasgow University Media Group, Department of Sociology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8LF

This paper introduces focus group methodology, gives advice on group composition, running the groups, and analysing the results. Focus groups have advantages for researchers in the field of health and medicine: they do not discriminate against people who cannot read or write and they can encourage participation from people reluctant to be interviewed on their own or who feel they have nothing to say.

This is the fifth in a series of seven articles describing non-quantitative techniques and showing their value in health research

**FIGURE OMITTED**

Rationale and uses of focus groups

Focus groups are a form of group interview that capitalises on communication between research participants in order to generate data. Although group interviews are often used simply as a quick and convenient way to collect data from several people simultaneously, focus groups explicitly use group interaction as part of the method. This means that instead of the researcher asking each person to respond to a question in turn, people are encouraged to talk to one another: asking questions, exchanging anecdotes and commenting on each other's experiences and points of view. 1 The method is particularly useful for exploring people's knowledge and experiences and can be used to examine not only what people think but how they think and why they think that way.

Focus groups were originally used within communication studies to explore the effects of films and television programmes, 2 and are a popular method for assessing health education messages and examining public understandings of illness and of health behaviours. 3 4 5 6 7 They are widely used to examine people's experiences of disease and of health services. 8 9 and are an effective technique for exploring the attitudes and needs of staff. 10 11

The idea behind the focus group method is that group processes can help people to explore and clarify their views in ways that would be less easily accessible in a one to one interview. Group discussion is particularly appropriate when the interviewer has a series of open ended questions and wishes to encourage research participants to explore the issues of importance to them, in their own vocabulary, generating their own questions and pursuing their own priorities. When group dynamics work well the participants work alongside the researcher, taking the research in new and often unexpected directions.

Group work also helps researchers tap into the many different forms of communication that people use in day to day interaction, including jokes, anecdotes, teasing, and arguing. Gaining access to such variety of communication is useful because people's knowledge and attitudes are not entirely encapsulated in reasoned responses to direct questions. Everyday forms of communication may tell us as much, if not more, about what people know or experience. In this sense focus groups reach the parts that other methods cannot reach, revealing dimensions of understanding that often remain untapped by more conventional data collection techniques.

Some potential sampling advantages with focus groups

Do not discriminate against people who cannot read or write

Can encourage participation from those who are reluctant to be interviewed on their own (such as those intimidated by the formality and isolation of a one to one interview)

Can encourage contributions from people who feel they have nothing to say or who are deemed “unresponsive patients” (but engage in the discussion generated by other group members)

Tapping into such interpersonal communication is also important because this can highlight (sub)cultural values or group norms. Through analysing the operation of humour, consensus, and dissent and examining different types of narrative used within the group, the researcher can identify shared and common knowledge. 12 This makes focus groups a data collection technique particularly sensitive to cultural variables—which is why it is so often used in cross cultural research and work with ethnic minorities. It also makes them useful in studies examining why different sections of the population make differential use of health services. 13 14 For similar reasons focus groups are useful for studying dominant cultural values (for example, exposing dominant narratives about sexuality 15 ) and for examining work place cultures—the ways in which, for example, staff cope with working with terminally ill patients or deal with the stresses of an accident and emergency department.

The downside of such group dynamics is that the articulation of group norms may silence individual voices of dissent. The presence of other research participants also compromises the confidentiality of the research session. For example, in group discussion with old people in long term residential care I found that some residents tried to prevent others from criticising staff—becoming agitated and repeatedly interrupting with cries of “you can't complain”; “the staff couldn't possibly be nicer.” On the one hand, such interactions highlighted certain aspects of these people's experiences. In this case, it showed some resident's fear of being “punished” by staff for, in the words of one woman, “being cheeky.” On the other hand, such group dynamics raise ethical issues (especially when the work is with “captive” populations) and may limit the usefulness of the data for certain purposes (Scottish Health Feedback, unpublished report).

However, it should not be assumed that groups are, by definition, inhibiting relative to the supposed privacy of an interview situation or that focus groups are inappropriate when researching sensitive topics. Quite the opposite may be true. Group work can actively facilitate the discussion of taboo topics because the less inhibited members of the group break the ice for shyer participants. Participants can also provide mutual support in expressing feelings that are common to their group but which they consider to deviate from mainstream culture (or the assumed culture of the researcher). This is particularly important when researching stigmatised or taboo experiences (for example, bereavement or sexual violence).

Focus group methods are also popular with those conducting action research and those concerned to “empower” research participants because the participants can become an active part of the process of analysis. Indeed, group participants may actually develop particular perspectives as a consequence of talking with other people who have similar experiences. For example, group dynamics can allow for a shift from personal, self blaming psychological explanations (“I'm stupid not to have understood what the doctor was telling me”; “I should have been stronger—I should have asked the right questions”) to the exploration of structural solutions (“If we've all felt confused about what we've been told maybe having a leaflet would help, or what about being able to take away a tape recording of the consultation?”).

Some researchers have also noted that group discussions can generate more critical comments than interviews. 16 For example, Geis et al, in their study of the lovers of people with AIDS, found that there were more angry comments about the medical community in the group discussions than in the individual interviews: “perhaps the synergism of the group ‘kept the anger going’ and allowed each participant to reinforce another's vented feelings of frustration and rage. 17 A method that facilitates the expression of criticism and the exploration of different types of solutions is invaluable if the aim of research is to improve services. Such a method is especially appropriate when working with particular disempowered patient populations who are often reluctant to give negative feedback or may feel that any problems result from their own inadequacies. 19

Conducting a focus group study

Sampling and group composition.

Focus group studies can consist of anything between half a dozen to over fifty groups, depending on the aims of the project and the resources available. Most studies involve just a few groups, and some combine this method with other data collection techniques. Focus group discussion of a questionnaire is ideal for testing the phrasing of questions and is also useful in explaining or exploring survey results. 19 20

Although it may be possible to work with a representative sample of a small population, most focus group studies use a theoretical sampling model (explained earlier in this series 21 ) whereby participants are selected to reflect a range of the total study population or to test particular hypotheses. Imaginative sampling is crucial. Most people now recognise class or ethnicity as important variables, and it is also worth considering other variables. For example, when exploring women's experiences of maternity care or cervical smears it may be advisable to include groups of lesbians or women who were sexually abused as children. 22

Most researchers recommend aiming for homogeneity within each group in order to capitalise on people's shared experiences. However, it can also be advantageous to bring together a diverse group (for example, from a range of professions) to maximise exploration of different perspectives within a group setting. However, it is important to be aware of how hierarchy within the group may affect the data (a nursing auxiliary, for example, is likely to be inhibited by the presence of a consultant from the same hospital).

The groups can be “naturally occurring” (for example, people who work together) or may be drawn together specifically for the research. Using preexisting groups allows observation of fragments of interactions that approximate to naturally occurring data (such as might have been collected by participant observation). An additional advantage is that friends and colleagues can relate each other's comments to incidents in their shared daily lives. They may challenge each other on contradictions between what they profess to believe and how they actually behave (for example, “how about that time you didn't use a glove while taking blood from a patient?”).

It would be naive to assume that group data are by definition “natural” in the sense that such interactions would have occurred without the group being convened for this purpose. Rather than assuming that sessions inevitably reflect everyday interactions (although sometimes they will), the group should be used to encourage people to engage with one another, formulate their ideas, and draw out the cognitive structures which previously have not been articulated.

Finally, it is important to consider the appropriateness of group work for different study populations and to think about how to overcome potential difficulties. Group work can facilitate collecting information from people who cannot read or write. The “safety in numbers factor” may also encourage the participation of those who are wary of an interviewer or who are anxious about talking. 23 However, group work can compound difficulties in communication if each person has a different disability. In the study assessing residential care for the elderly, I conducted a focus group that included one person who had impaired hearing, another with senile dementia, and a third with partial paralysis affecting her speech. This severely restricted interaction between research participants and confirmed some of the staff's predictions about the limitations of group work with this population. However, such problems could be resolved by thinking more carefully about the composition of the group, and sometimes group participants could help to translate for each other. It should also be noted that some of the old people who might have been unable to sustain a one to one interview were able to take part in the group, contributing intermittently. Even some residents who staff had suggested should be excluded from the research because they were “unresponsive” eventually responded to the lively conversations generated by their coresidents and were able to contribute their point of view. Communication difficulties should not rule out group work, but must be considered as a factor.

RUNNING THE GROUPS

Sessions should be relaxed: a comfortable setting, refreshments, and sitting round in a circle will help to establish the right atmosphere. The ideal group size is between four and eight people. Sessions may last one to two hours (or extend into a whole afternoon or a series of meetings). The facilitator should explain that the aim of focus groups is to encourage people to talk to each other rather than to address themselves to the researcher. The researcher may take a back seat at first, allowing for a type of “structured eavesdropping.” 24 Later on in the session, however, the researcher can adopt a more interventionist style: urging debate to continue beyond the stage it might otherwise have ended and encouraging the group to discuss the inconsistencies both between participants and within their own thinking. Disagreements within groups can be used to encourage participants to elucidate their point of view and to clarify why they think as they do. Differences between individual one off interviews have to be analysed by the researchers through armchair theorising; differences between members of focus groups should be explored in situ with the help of the research participants.

The facilitator may also use a range of group exercises. A common exercise consists of presenting the group with a series of statements on large cards. The group members are asked collectively to sort these cards into different piles depending on, for example, their degree of agreement or disagreement with that point of view or the importance they assign to that particular aspect of service. For example, I have used such cards to explore public understandings of HIV transmission (placing statements about “types” of people into different risk categories), old people's experiences of residential care (assigning degrees of importance to different statements about the quality of their care), and midwive's views of their professional responsibilities (placing a series of statements about midwive's roles along an agree-disagree continuum). Such exercises encourage participants to concentrate on one another (rather than on the group facilitator) and force them to explain their different perspectives. The final layout of the cards is less important than the discussion that it generates. 25 Researchers may also use such exercises as a way of checking out their own assessment of what has emerged from the group. In this case it is best to take along a series of blank cards and fill them out only towards the end of the session, using statements generated during the course of the discussion. Finally, it may be beneficial to present research participants with a brief questionnaire, or the opportunity to speak to the researcher privately, giving each one the opportunity to record private comments after the group session has been completed.

Ideally the group discussions should be tape recorded and transcribed. If this is not possible then it is vital to take careful notes and researchers may find it useful to involve the group in recording key issues on a flip chart.

ANALYSIS AND WRITING UP

Analysing focus groups is basically the same as analysing any other qualitative self report data. 21 26 At the very least, the researcher draws together and compares discussions of similar themes and examines how these relate to the variables within the sample population. In general, it is not appropriate to give percentages in reports of focus group data, and it is important to try to distinguish between individual opinions expressed in spite of the group from the actual group consensus. As in all qualitative analysis, deviant case analysis is important—that is, attention must be given to minority opinions and examples that do not fit with the researcher's overall theory.

The only distinct feature of working with focus group data is the need to indicate the impact of the group dynamic and analyse the sessions in ways that take full advantage of the interaction between research participants. In coding the script of a group discussion, it is worth using special categories for certain types of narrative, such as jokes and anecdotes, and types of interaction, such as “questions,” “deferring to the opinion of others,” “censorship,” or “changes of mind.” A focus group research report that is true to its data should also usually include at least some illustrations of the talk between participants, rather than simply presenting isolated quotations taken out of context.

Tapping into interpersonal communication can highlight cultural values or group norms

This paper has presented the factors to consider when designing or evaluating a focus group study. In particular, it has drawn attention to the overt exploitation and exploration of interactions in focus group discussion. Interaction between participants can be used to achieve seven main aims:

To highlight the respondent's attitudes, priorities, language, and framework of understanding;

To encourage research participants to generate and explore their own questions and develop their own analysis of common experiences;

To encourage a variety of communication from participants—tapping into a wide range and form of understanding;

To help to identify group norms and cultural values;

To provide insight into the operation of group social processes in the articulation of knowledge (for example, through the examination of what information is censured or muted within the group);

To encourage open conversation about embarrassing subjects and to permit the expression of criticism;

Generally to facilitate the expression of ideas and experiences that might be left underdeveloped in an interview and to illuminate the research participant's perspectives through the debate within the group.

Group data are neither more nor less authentic than data collected by other methods, but focus groups can be the most appropriate method for researching particular types of question. Direct observation may be more appropriate for studies of social roles and formal organisations 27 but focus groups are particularly suited to the study of attitudes and experiences. Interviews may be more appropriate for tapping into individual biographies, 27 but focus groups are more suitable for examining how knowledge, and more importantly, ideas, develop and operate within a given cultural context. Questionnaires are more appropriate for obtaining quantitative information and explaining how many people hold a certain (pre-defined) opinion; focus groups are better for exploring exactly how those opinions are constructed. Thus while surveys repeatedly identify gaps between health knowledge and health behaviour, only qualitative methods, such as focus groups, can actually fill these gaps and explain why these occur.

Focus groups are not an easy option. The data they generate can be as cumbersome as they are complex. Yet the method is basically straightforward and need not be intimidating for either the researcher or the researched. Perhaps the very best way of working out whether or not focus groups might be appropriate in any particular study is to try them out in practice.

Interviews and Focus Groups

Cite this chapter.

Matthew T. Prior 5

7935 Accesses

10 Citations

This chapter presents a philosophical and methodological background for conducting and evaluating interview and focus group research in applied linguistics. It discusses the strengths and limitations of various approaches and deconstructs ‘commonsense’ assumptions about interviewing by examining the influence of two prevalent perspectives: ‘interview as research instrument’ and ‘interview as social practice’. Emphasizing researcher responsibility, ethical conduct, and reflexivity, Prior also gives attention to issues related to rapport, language choice, interculturality, and ‘naturalness’ of interview and focus group data. The chapter concludes by considering recent directions in interview research and provides an annotated list of resources for further reading.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

I am primarily concerned here with face-to-face interviews. For other modes, see, for example, Gubrium et al. ( 2012 ).

This is a necessarily abbreviated history. Oral history interviews and anthropological interviews can be traced back much further. See, for example, Malinowski ( 1922 ) and Ritchie ( 2011 ).

See Rapley ( 2007 ) for another perspective on “naturally occurring” data.

Arksey, H., & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists: An introductory resource with examples . London: SAGE.

Google Scholar

Atkinson, P. (2015). For ethnography . London: SAGE.

Atkinson, P., & Silverman, D. (1997). Kundera’s Immortality: The interview society and the invention of the self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3 (3), 304–325.

Atkinson, R. (1998). The life story interview . London: SAGE.

Baker, C. D. (2002). Ethnomethodological analyses of interviews. In J. Holstein & J. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 395–412). London: SAGE.

Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning research . New York: Routledge.

van den Berg, H., Wetherell, M., & Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (Eds.). (2003). Analyzing race talk: Multidisciplinary approaches to the interview . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2008). Language shift and the family: Questions from the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12 (2), 143–176.

Chase, S. (2011). Narrative inquiry: Still a field in the making. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 421–434). London: SAGE.

Chen, S.-H. (2011). Power relations between the researcher and the researched: An analysis of native and nonnative ethnographic interviews. Field Methods, 23 (2), 119–135.

Chiu, L.-F., & Knight, D. (1999). Developing focus group research: Politics, theory, and practice. In J. Kitzinger & R. Barbour (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 99–112). London: SAGE.

Codó, E. (2008). Interviews and questionnaires. In L. Wei & M. Moyer (Eds.), Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 158–176). Oxford: Blackwell.

Currivan, D. B. (2008). Conversational interviewing. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (p. 152). London: SAGE.

De Fina, A., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2012). Analyzing narrative: Discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Duncombe, J., & Jessop, J. (2012). Doing rapport and the ethics of “faking friendship”. In T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner, & J. Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 107–122). London: SAGE.

Dushku, S. (2000). Conducting individual and focus group interviews in research in Albania. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (4), 763–768.

Edley, N., & Litosseliti, L. (2010). Contemplating interviews and focus groups. In L. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 155–179). London: Continuum.

Fern, E. F. (2001). Advanced focus group research . London: SAGE.

Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research . London: SAGE.

Foley, L. (2012). Constructing the respondent. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvast, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 305–315). London: SAGE.

Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (Eds.). (2013). The Routledge handbook of language testing . London: Routledge.

Goodman, S., & Speer, S. (2016). Natural and contrived data. In C. Tileagă & E. Stokoe (Eds.), Discursive psychology: Classic and contemporary issues (pp. 57–69). London: Routledge.

Goodwin, J. (2012). Sage biographical research (Vol. 1: Biographical research: Starting points, debates and approaches) . London: SAGE.

Griffin, G. (2015). Cross-cultural interviewing: Feminist experiences and reflections . London: Routledge.

Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2002). From the individual to the interview society. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 3–32). London: SAGE.

Gubrium, J. F., Holstein, J. A., Marvasti, A. B., & McKinney, K. D. (Eds.). (2012). The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.

Heyl, B. S. (2001). Ethnographic interviewing. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 369–383). London: SAGE.

Ho, D. (2006). The Focus group interview: Rising to the challenge in qualitative research methodology. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29 (1), 5.1–5.19.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2004). The active interview. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice (pp. 140–161). London: SAGE.

Horowitz, R. (1986). Remaining an outsider: Membership as a threat to research rapport. Urban Life, 14 (4), 409–430.

Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics in Academic Writing, 23 (2), 215–239.

Kasper, G., & Omori, M. (2010). Language and culture. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 455–491). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Kasper, G., & Prior, M. T. (2015). Analyzing storytelling in TESOL interview research. TESOL Quarterly, 49 (2), 226–255.

Kecskes, I. (2012). Interculturality and intercultural pragmatics. In J. Jackson (Ed.), Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (pp. 67–84). London: Routledge.

Kenney, R., & Akita, K. (2008). When West writes East: In search of an ethic for cross-cultural interviewing. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 23 , 280–295.

Kitzinger, J. (1995). Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311 , 299–311.

Kropf, M. E. (2004). Survey methods. In J. G. Greer (Ed.), Public opinion and polling around the world: A historical encyclopedia (Vol. 1, pp. 468–474). Oxford: ABC-CLIO.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research . London: SAGE.

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular . Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.

Lavrakas, P. (Ed.). (2008). Encyclopedia of survey methods . London: SAGE.

Liamputtong, P. (2011). Focus group methodology: Principle and practice . London: SAGE.

Lillrank, A. (2012). Managing the interviewer self. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 281–294). London: SAGE.

Litosseliti, L. (2007). Using focus groups in research . London: Continuum.

Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific . London: Routledge.

Maryns, K. (2012). Multilingualism in legal settings. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 297–313). London: Routledge.

Menard-Warwick, J. (2009). Gendered identities and immigrant language learning . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Miller, E. (2011). Indeterminacy and interview research: Co-constructing ambiguity and clarity in interviews with an adult immigrant learner of English. Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), 43–59.

Miller, E. R. (2014). The language of adult immigrants: Agency in the making . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research . London: SAGE.

Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. Language in Society, 27 , 85–111.

Nairn, K., Munro, J., & Smith, A. B. (2005). A counter-narrative of a “failed” interview. Qualitative Research, 5 (2), 221–244.

Parkinson, J., & Crouch, A. (2011). Education, language, and identity amongst students at a South African university. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 10 (2), 83–98.

Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographical narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28 (2), 163–188.

Potter, J. (2004). Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 200–221). London: SAGE.

Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2 , 281–307.

Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2008). Discursive constructionism. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 275–293). New York: Guildford.

Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2012). Eight challenges for interview researchers. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 555–570). London: SAGE.

Prior, M. T. (2014). Re-examining alignment in a ‘failed’ L2 autobiographic research interview. Qualitative Inquiry, 20 (4), 495–508.

Prior, M. T. (2016). Emotion and discourse in L2 narrative research . Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Prior, M. T. (2017). Accomplishing “rapport” in qualitative research interviews: Empathic moments in interaction. Applied Linguistics Review . https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0029 .

Rapley, T. J. (2007). Doing conversation, discourse, and document . London: SAGE.

Rapley, T. J. (2012). The (extra)ordinary practices of qualitative interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 541–554). London: SAGE.

Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor—A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Richards, K. (2009). Interviews. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction (pp. 182–199). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Richards, K. (2011). Using micro-analysis in interviewer training: ‘Continuers’ and interviewer positioning. Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), 95–112.

Riemann, G., & Schütze, E. (1991). “Trajectory” as a basic theoretical concept for analyzing suffering and disorderly social processes. In D. R. Maines (Ed.), Social organization and social process: Essays in honor of Anselm Strauss (pp. 333–357). New York: de Gruyter.

Ritchie, D. A. (Ed.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of oral history . Oxford: Oxford University press.

Roulston, K. (2010). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice . London: SAGE.

Roulston, K. (2011). Working through challenges in doing interview research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10 (4), 348–366.

Roulston, K. (2012). The pedagogy of interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 61–74). London: SAGE.

Roulston, K. (2014). Interaction problems in research interviews. Qualitative Research, 14 (3), 277–293.

Rubin, H. R., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.

Sapsford, R. (2007). Survey research (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.

Schaeffer, N. C. (1991). Conversation with a purpose—Or conversation? Interaction in the standardized interview. In P. P. Biemer, R. M. Groves, L. E. Lyberg, N. A. Mathiowetz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Measurement errors in surveys (pp. 367–391). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Silverman, D. (2014). Interpreting qualitative data (5th ed.). London: SAGE.

Skinner, J. (2012). The interview: An ethnographic approach . London: Berg.

Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books.

Speer, S. A. (2002). ‘Natural’ and ‘contrived’ data: A sustainable distinction? Discourse Studies, 4 (4), 511–525.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview . New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2014). Focus groups: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.

Talmy, S. (2010). Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instrument to social practice. ARAL, 30 , 128–148.

Talmy, S. (2011). The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, identity, and ideology in a speech event. Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), 35–42.

Talmy, S., & Richards, K. (Eds.). (2011). Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: Discursive perspectives [Special issue]. Applied Linguistics, 32 (1), 1–128.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22 (4), 575–592.

Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies . New York: The Free Press.

Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing . London: SAGE.

Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus group research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 177–199). London: SAGE.

Winchatz, M. R. (2006). Fieldworker or foreigner? Ethnographic interviewing in nonnative languages. Field Methods, 18 , 83–97.

Zimmerman, D. H. (1998). Identity, context and interaction. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 87–106). London: SAGE.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of English, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Matthew T. Prior

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew T. Prior .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Sydney School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Aek Phakiti

Department of Linguistics, Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African Languages, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Peter De Costa

Applied Linguistics, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

Luke Plonsky

School of Education, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Sue Starfield

Copyright information

About this chapter

Prior, M.T. (2018). Interviews and Focus Groups. In: Phakiti, A., De Costa, P., Plonsky, L., Starfield, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_11

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-137-59899-8

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-59900-1

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

A guide to focus group interviews

Last updated

12 March 2023

Reviewed by

Jean Kaluza

Analyze focus group sessions

Dovetail streamlines focus group research to help you understand the responses and find patterns faster

What is a focus group?

A focus group is a technique in qualitative research to collect data through group discussions. A group of five to 10 people answers questions on a specific topic in a moderated setting.

The person who runs the focus group is the moderator. They’re in charge of leading the members through the discussion and taking notes of the group’s opinions.

Characteristics of a focus group

The characteristics of a focus group include:

A specific discussion topic

A facilitator

Carefully planned group discussions

Similar characteristics across the participants

Five different types of focus groups

There are several types of focus groups . They include:

1. Dual moderator focus group

This involves two moderators, each with different roles. For example, one may take notes while the other facilitates the discussion.

2. Two-way focus group

One group watches and listens to what another group is discussing and later comments on what they have heard or observed. Again, both groups have facilitators.

3. Client-involvement focus group

This focus group includes representatives from the company you’re studying. The client is part of the discussion and steers the discussion toward the main objective.

4. Mini focus group

A mini focus group involves a smaller group of participants, typically four or five.

5. Online focus groups

In online focus groups, participants contribute to the discussion remotely via video chat.

The purpose of focus group interviews

The primary purpose of a focus group interview is to gather qualitative insights from people with specific knowledge of a particular topic or product. Other purposes of focus groups include:

Identifying how people use products

Testing new ideas

Understanding customer needs

Understanding customers' dissatisfaction with certain products

Listening to your customers’ discussion about your products

Viewing brand perception in the community

When to use a focus group interview

You should use focus group interviews when:

Exploring or generating hypotheses

You want a better understanding of the results of a primary quantitative research

Seeking a more interactive research method

You can’t explain a problem by any other method

Understanding complex phenomena, behaviors, or motivations

Logistical considerations of a focus group

Some of the logistical considerations to prioritize are:

Recruiting the right participants

Since focus groups rely on a small number of respondents, it’s essential to recruit suitable participants for effective results.

The common criteria for selecting the right participants are choosing members with knowledge of the subject. Other popular recruiting methods are:

Random selection : Drawing names of participants from a large group of people

Nomination : Where key individuals suggest people they think are a good choice

Volunteering : Where you recruit participants through newspaper ads or flyers

Selecting the right moderator

It’s necessary to select the right facilitator to steer the discussion in the right direction.

They should also have:

Adequate topic knowledge

Facilitator experience

Knowledge of focus group techniques and moderation

The ability to empathize with the group

The skills to direct the discussion

Choosing the venue

You should carefully choose the location to match the expectations of the respondent group.

It should be accessible to all, have ample parking, and be well-connected by public transport. This ensures that participants arrive on time without any difficulties.

The room should be free from distractions and the appropriate size for the participants. Participants are more likely to feel comfortable expressing opinions in a relaxing environment.

Ensuring working equipment

The moderator should check the equipment beforehand to ensure it works. This includes ensuring audio or video recording tools are well-serviced and functioning as required.

You need to inform the participants that you may record the session. It’s important to receive permission to record and get participants to sign NDAs if they’re discussing sensitive ideas.

Selecting the right incentives

It’s standard practice to offer respondents incentives to thank them for showing up.

You may need to provide incentives to keep the participants focused and content.

Some incentive ideas include:

Monetary compensation

Company merchandise

Prize draws

Free transport

Proper time management

When conducting focus group interviews, keep the sessions short. Focus group interviews should typically last 60–90 minutes. The longer the discussion, the less interested the participants will likely be, so the sessions become less lively.

How to conduct focus group interviews

Follow these steps when conducting a focus group interview:

Prepare an interview schedule

First, write out a list of questions and topics for the discussion. This ensures clear objectives from the start. Keep your interview questions:

Short and clear

On topic and in line with your research objectives

Unambiguously worded

Well-structured

With the efficient use of an interview guide, the moderator will periodically check to ensure that the discussion is progressing appropriately.

Moderating involves keeping the interactions flowing and guiding the group whenever they veer off to irrelevant topics.

While moderating, the facilitator should let the participants know they are part of the team. In addition, the moderator should use pauses and probes.

Examples of probes include:

Please elaborate more

Can you tell me more about that?

The moderator can curb distractions with:

We’re not discussing that topic at the moment

That sounds unrelated; maybe we can come back to that later

Additionally, the moderator must regulate and control group dynamics. This includes research-endangering social conformity.

Should your group have a louder or more persuasive voice, the rest could naturally agree with their perspectives and opinions. This can quickly turn a diverse focus group and data set into an expensive single-minded response from your whole group.

Tactics to consider include timing and moderating responses carefully, providing post-its for participants to respond with, or creating exercises to ensure every voice is equal.

Starting the focus group

The moderator should spend the first few minutes of the discussion creating an open and permissive atmosphere for all the participants. The moderator can start by welcoming the members and giving an overview of the discussion.

Leading the discussion

Once the moderator establishes rapport, they set ground rules and welcome follow-up questions.

The moderator should ask questions methodically. Once they’ve asked all the questions, it’s time to wrap up with final thoughts.

Finally, the moderator can thank the participants and end the session.

Addressing common focus group challenges

Here are three common challenges of focus groups and how to address them.

1. Managing group dynamics

Domineering people can lead a discussion and skew research findings. If more than one strong personality is in the room, hostility or outright fights can derail productivity.

Agreeable or more introverted individuals in the group may go along with whatever voice they are most persuaded or intimidated by. This means you may never discover their true opinions.

Consider the following tips to make all participants comfortable during the discussion:

Start the session with a warm-up activity for all members to get comfortable

Use icebreakers such as two truths and one lie

Use a mix of written and verbal participation techniques for maximum contribution

2. Facilitator bias

Moderators can negatively impact the outcome of the discussion. This happens when the facilitator selects people with positive responses that align with their opinions.

Although bias is challenging to eliminate, noting potential sources of bias can address the challenge. Moderators can mitigate bias by remaining objective, being self-aware, using neutral language, and minding body language.

3. The results may not be representative

Often, you cannot generalize the results from a small group to a larger group. Therefore, you should choose participants who represent the target audience to address this challenge.

Advantages of focus groups

Focus groups offer several advantages, including:

Understanding the subject matter and customer base in their own words

Recording facial expressions and other nonverbal signs

Generating results in 90-minute sessions

A deeper understanding of the respondents through personal interaction

Listening in on conversations about your product you otherwise would never hear

Disadvantages of focus groups

Face-to-face focus group interviews also have a few drawbacks.

Geographical restrictions can cause issues if participants have to travel to participate.

Some members may shy away and contribute less to the discussion.

The discussion may veer toward irrelevant topics, so a strong facilitator is crucial.

The follow-up probes might take longer.

Paying a group rather than individuals can be costly and risks conforming to one voice.

Sample focus group interview questions

The interview questions should be engaging, explorative, and open-ended.

For instance, when discussing a topic that tests a phone's performance in the market:

Engagement questions to ask a focus group about their phones:

Which is your favorite phone?

What do you consider when buying a new phone?

Exploration questions can include:

Who influenced you to purchase the phone you are currently using?

What are the advantages of using the phone brand?

How do you feel about changing to other brands?

Exit questions ensure nothing has been left out. Sample interview questions could include:

Is there anyone who would like to add to what we’ve said?

Does anyone have any final thoughts?

How are focus group interviews conducted?

Focus groups involve 6–10 respondents coming together for a guided discussion. During the session, the members answer predetermined questions to gather their opinions and motivations about a particular topic.

Why are focus group interviews better?

Typically, this research method can unearth detailed information while observing the respondent's body language. You can collect multiple findings while witnessing the group's thought process.

What should be discussed in a focus group?

Participants of focus groups are free to share their opinions, insights, and knowledge about a specific topic.

How do you plan a focus group question?

The questions in a focus group discussion should be explorative, open-ended, carefully worded, and unbiased. You should write them to fit what your research study is trying to uncover.

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Focus Groups – Steps, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

Focus Group

Definition:

A focus group is a qualitative research method used to gather in-depth insights and opinions from a group of individuals about a particular product, service, concept, or idea.

The focus group typically consists of 6-10 participants who are selected based on shared characteristics such as demographics, interests, or experiences. The discussion is moderated by a trained facilitator who asks open-ended questions to encourage participants to share their thoughts, feelings, and attitudes towards the topic.

Focus groups are an effective way to gather detailed information about consumer behavior, attitudes, and perceptions, and can provide valuable insights to inform decision-making in a range of fields including marketing, product development, and public policy.

Types of Focus Group

The following are some types or methods of Focus Groups:

Traditional Focus Group

This is the most common type of focus group, where a small group of people is brought together to discuss a particular topic. The discussion is typically led by a skilled facilitator who asks open-ended questions to encourage participants to share their thoughts and opinions.

Mini Focus Group

A mini-focus group involves a smaller group of participants, typically 3 to 5 people. This type of focus group is useful when the topic being discussed is particularly sensitive or when the participants are difficult to recruit.

Dual Moderator Focus Group

In a dual-moderator focus group, two facilitators are used to manage the discussion. This can help to ensure that the discussion stays on track and that all participants have an opportunity to share their opinions.

Teleconference or Online Focus Group

Teleconferences or online focus groups are conducted using video conferencing technology or online discussion forums. This allows participants to join the discussion from anywhere in the world, making it easier to recruit participants and reducing the cost of conducting the focus group.

Client-led Focus Group

In a client-led focus group, the client who is commissioning the research takes an active role in the discussion. This type of focus group is useful when the client has specific questions they want to ask or when they want to gain a deeper understanding of their customers.

The following Table can explain Focus Group types more clearly

How To Conduct a Focus Group

To conduct a focus group, follow these general steps:

Define the Research Question

Identify the key research question or objective that you want to explore through the focus group. Develop a discussion guide that outlines the topics and questions you want to cover during the session.

Recruit Participants

Identify the target audience for the focus group and recruit participants who meet the eligibility criteria. You can use various recruitment methods such as social media, online panels, or referrals from existing customers.

Select a Venue

Choose a location that is convenient for the participants and has the necessary facilities such as audio-visual equipment, seating, and refreshments.

Conduct the Session

During the focus group session, introduce the topic, and review the objectives of the research. Encourage participants to share their thoughts and opinions by asking open-ended questions and probing deeper into their responses. Ensure that the discussion remains on topic and that all participants have an opportunity to contribute.

Record the Session

Use audio or video recording equipment to capture the discussion. Note-taking is also essential to ensure that you capture all key points and insights.

Analyze the data

Once the focus group is complete, transcribe and analyze the data. Look for common themes, patterns, and insights that emerge from the discussion. Use this information to generate insights and recommendations that can be applied to the research question.

When to use Focus Group Method

The focus group method is typically used in the following situations:

Exploratory Research

When a researcher wants to explore a new or complex topic in-depth, focus groups can be used to generate ideas, opinions, and insights.

Product Development

Focus groups are often used to gather feedback from consumers about new products or product features to help identify potential areas for improvement.

Marketing Research

Focus groups can be used to test marketing concepts, messaging, or advertising campaigns to determine their effectiveness and appeal to different target audiences.

Customer Feedback

Focus groups can be used to gather feedback from customers about their experiences with a particular product or service, helping companies improve customer satisfaction and loyalty.

Public Policy Research

Focus groups can be used to gather public opinions and attitudes on social or political issues, helping policymakers make more informed decisions.

Examples of Focus Group

Here are some real-time examples of focus groups:

A tech company wants to improve the user experience of their mobile app. They conduct a focus group with a diverse group of users to gather feedback on the app’s design, functionality, and features. The focus group consists of 8 participants who are selected based on their age, gender, ethnicity, and level of experience with the app. During the session, a trained facilitator asks open-ended questions to encourage participants to share their thoughts and opinions on the app. The facilitator also observes the participants’ behavior and reactions to the app’s features. After the focus group, the data is analyzed to identify common themes and issues raised by the participants. The insights gathered from the focus group are used to inform improvements to the app’s design and functionality, with the goal of creating a more user-friendly and engaging experience for all users.
A car manufacturer wants to develop a new electric vehicle that appeals to a younger demographic. They conduct a focus group with millennials to gather their opinions on the design, features, and pricing of the vehicle.
A political campaign team wants to develop effective messaging for their candidate’s campaign. They conduct a focus group with voters to gather their opinions on key issues and identify the most persuasive arguments and messages.
A restaurant chain wants to develop a new menu that appeals to health-conscious customers. They conduct a focus group with fitness enthusiasts to gather their opinions on the types of food and drinks that they would like to see on the menu.
A healthcare organization wants to develop a new wellness program for their employees. They conduct a focus group with employees to gather their opinions on the types of programs, incentives, and support that would be most effective in promoting healthy behaviors.
A clothing retailer wants to develop a new line of sustainable and eco-friendly clothing. They conduct a focus group with environmentally conscious consumers to gather their opinions on the design, materials, and pricing of the clothing.

Purpose of Focus Group

The key objectives of a focus group include:

Generating New Ideas and insights

Focus groups are used to explore new or complex topics in-depth, generating new ideas and insights that may not have been previously considered.

Understanding Consumer Behavior

Focus groups can be used to gather information on consumer behavior, attitudes, and perceptions to inform marketing and product development strategies.

Testing Concepts and Ideas

Focus groups can be used to test marketing concepts, messaging, or product prototypes to determine their effectiveness and appeal to different target audiences.

Gathering Customer Feedback

Informing decision-making.

Focus groups can provide valuable insights to inform decision-making in a range of fields including marketing, product development, and public policy.

Advantages of Focus Group

The advantages of using focus groups are:

In-depth insights: Focus groups provide in-depth insights into the attitudes, opinions, and behaviors of a target audience on a specific topic, allowing researchers to gain a deeper understanding of the issues being explored.
Group dynamics: The group dynamics of focus groups can provide additional insights, as participants may build on each other’s ideas, share experiences, and debate different perspectives.
Efficient data collection: Focus groups are an efficient way to collect data from multiple individuals at the same time, making them a cost-effective method of research.
Flexibility : Focus groups can be adapted to suit a range of research objectives, from exploratory research to concept testing and customer feedback.
Real-time feedback: Focus groups provide real-time feedback on new products or concepts, allowing researchers to make immediate adjustments and improvements based on participant feedback.
Participant engagement: Focus groups can be a more engaging and interactive research method than surveys or other quantitative methods, as participants have the opportunity to express their opinions and interact with other participants.

Limitations of Focus Groups

While focus groups can provide valuable insights, there are also some limitations to using them.

Small sample size: Focus groups typically involve a small number of participants, which may not be representative of the broader population being studied.
Group dynamics : While group dynamics can be an advantage of focus groups, they can also be a limitation, as dominant personalities may sway the discussion or participants may not feel comfortable expressing their true opinions.
Limited generalizability : Because focus groups involve a small sample size, the results may not be generalizable to the broader population.
Limited depth of responses: Because focus groups are time-limited, participants may not have the opportunity to fully explore or elaborate on their opinions or experiences.
Potential for bias: The facilitator of a focus group may inadvertently influence the discussion or the selection of participants may not be representative, leading to potential bias in the results.
Difficulty in analysis : The qualitative data collected in focus groups can be difficult to analyze, as it is often subjective and requires a skilled researcher to interpret and identify themes.

Characteristics of Focus Group

Small group size: Focus groups typically involve a small number of participants, ranging from 6 to 12 people. This allows for a more in-depth and focused discussion.
Targeted participants: Participants in focus groups are selected based on specific criteria, such as age, gender, or experience with a particular product or service.
Facilitated discussion: A skilled facilitator leads the discussion, asking open-ended questions and encouraging participants to share their thoughts and experiences.
I nteractive and conversational: Focus groups are interactive and conversational, with participants building on each other’s ideas and responding to one another’s opinions.
Qualitative data: The data collected in focus groups is qualitative, providing detailed insights into participants’ attitudes, opinions, and behaviors.
Non-threatening environment: Participants are encouraged to share their thoughts and experiences in a non-threatening and supportive environment.
Limited time frame: Focus groups are typically time-limited, lasting between 1 and 2 hours, to ensure that the discussion stays focused and productive.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Qualitative Research Methods

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the digital age

Affiliations.

1 Senior Lecturer (Adult Nursing), School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University.
2 Lecturer (Adult Nursing) and RCBC Wales Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University.
PMID: 30287965
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.815

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

Knowledge Base
Methodology
What Is a Focus Group? | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

What Is a Focus Group? | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples

Published on 4 May 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on 6 February 2023.

What is a focus group, step 1: choose your topic of interest, step 2: define your research scope and hypotheses, step 3: determine your focus group questions, step 4: select a moderator or co-moderator, step 5: recruit your participants, step 6: set up your focus group, step 7: host your focus group, step 8: analyse your data and report your results, advantages and disadvantages of focus groups, frequently asked questions about focus groups.

Focus groups are a type of qualitative research . Observations of the group’s dynamic, their answers to focus group questions, and even their body language can guide future research on consumer decisions, products and services, or controversial topics.

Focus groups are often used in marketing, library science, social science, and user research disciplines. They can provide more nuanced and natural feedback than individual interviews and are easier to organise than experiments or large-scale surveys .

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Focus groups are primarily considered a confirmatory research technique . In other words, their discussion-heavy setting is most useful for confirming or refuting preexisting beliefs. For this reason, they are great for conducting explanatory research , where you explore why something occurs when limited information is available.

A focus group may be a good choice for you if:

You’re interested in real-time, unfiltered responses on a given topic or in the dynamics of a discussion between participants
Your questions are rooted in feelings or perceptions , and cannot easily be answered with ‘yes’ or ‘no’
You’re confident that a relatively small number of responses will answer your question
You’re seeking directional information that will help you uncover new questions or future research ideas
Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order.
Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.

Differences between types of interviews

Make sure to choose the type of interview that suits your research best. This table shows the most important differences between the four types.

Topics favorable to focus groups

As a rule of thumb, research topics related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups. If you are seeking direction, explanation, or in-depth dialogue, a focus group could be a good fit.

However, if your questions are dichotomous or if you need to reach a large audience quickly, a survey may be a better option. If your question hinges upon behaviour but you are worried about influencing responses, consider an observational study .

If you want to determine whether the student body would regularly consume vegan food, a survey would be a great way to gauge student preferences.

However, food is much more than just consumption and nourishment and can have emotional, cultural, and other implications on individuals.

If you’re interested in something less concrete, such as students’ perceptions of vegan food or the interplay between their choices at the dining hall and their feelings of homesickness or loneliness, perhaps a focus group would be best.

Once you have determined that a focus group is the right choice for your topic, you can start thinking about what you expect the group discussion to yield.

Perhaps literature already exists on your subject or a sufficiently similar topic that you can use as a starting point. If the topic isn’t well studied, use your instincts to determine what you think is most worthy of study.

Setting your scope will help you formulate intriguing hypotheses , set clear questions, and recruit the right participants.

Are you interested in a particular sector of the population, such as vegans or non-vegans?
Are you interested in including vegetarians in your analysis?
Perhaps not all students eat at the dining hall. Will your study exclude those who don’t?
Are you only interested in students who have strong opinions on the subject?

A benefit of focus groups is that your hypotheses can be open-ended. You can be open to a wide variety of opinions, which can lead to unexpected conclusions.

The questions that you ask your focus group are crucially important to your analysis. Take your time formulating them, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can affect your responses.

Overall, your focus group questions should be:

Open-ended and flexible
Impossible to answer with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (questions that start with ‘why’ or ‘how’ are often best)
Unambiguous, getting straight to the point while still stimulating discussion
Unbiased and neutral

If you are discussing a controversial topic, be careful that your questions do not cause social desirability bias . Here, your respondents may lie about their true beliefs to mask any socially unacceptable or unpopular opinions. This and other demand characteristics can hurt your analysis and bias your results.

Engagement questions make your participants feel comfortable and at ease: ‘What is your favourite food at the dining hall?’
Exploration questions drill down to the focus of your analysis: ‘What pros and cons of offering vegan options do you see?’
Exit questions pick up on anything you may have previously missed in your discussion: ‘Is there anything you’d like to mention about vegan options in the dining hall that we haven’t discussed?’

It is important to have more than one moderator in the room. If you would like to take the lead asking questions, select a co-moderator who can coordinate the technology, take notes, and observe the behaviour of the participants.

If your hypotheses have behavioural aspects, consider asking someone else to be lead moderator so that you are free to take a more observational role.

Depending on your topic, there are a few types of moderator roles that you can choose from.

The most common is the dual-moderator , introduced above.
Another common option is the dueling-moderator style . Here, you and your co-moderator take opposing sides on an issue to allow participants to see different perspectives and respond accordingly.

Depending on your research topic, there are a few sampling methods you can choose from to help you recruit and select participants.

Voluntary response sampling , such as posting a flyer on campus and finding participants based on responses
Convenience sampling of those who are most readily accessible to you, such as fellow students at your university
Stratified sampling of a particular age, race, ethnicity, gender identity, or other characteristic of interest to you
Judgement sampling of a specific set of participants that you already know you want to include

Beware of sampling bias , which can occur when some members of the population are more likely to be included than others.

Number of participants

In most cases, one focus group will not be sufficient to answer your research question. It is likely that you will need to schedule three to four groups. A good rule of thumb is to stop when you’ve reached a saturation point (i.e., when you aren’t receiving new responses to your questions).

Most focus groups have 6–10 participants. It’s a good idea to over-recruit just in case someone doesn’t show up. As a rule of thumb, you shouldn’t have fewer than 6 or more than 12 participants, in order to get the most reliable results.

Lastly, it’s preferable for your participants not to know you or each other, as this can bias your results.

A focus group is not just a group of people coming together to discuss their opinions. While well-run focus groups have an enjoyable and relaxed atmosphere, they are backed up by rigorous methods to provide robust observations.

Confirm a time and date

Be sure to confirm a time and date with your participants well in advance. Focus groups usually meet for 45–90 minutes, but some can last longer. However, beware of the possibility of wandering attention spans. If you really think your session needs to last longer than 90 minutes, schedule a few breaks.

Confirm whether it will take place in person or online

You will also need to decide whether the group will meet in person or online. If you are hosting it in person, be sure to pick an appropriate location.

An uncomfortable or awkward location may affect the mood or level of participation of your group members.
Online sessions are convenient, as participants can join from home, but they can also lessen the connection between participants.

As a general rule, make sure you are in a noise-free environment that minimises distractions and interruptions to your participants.

Consent and ethical considerations

It’s important to take into account ethical considerations and informed consent when conducting your research. Informed consent means that participants possess all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate in the research before it starts. This includes information about benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

Participants should also sign a release form that states that they are comfortable with being audio- or video-recorded. While verbal consent may be sufficient, it is best to ask participants to sign a form.

A disadvantage of focus groups is that they are too small to provide true anonymity to participants. Make sure that your participants know this prior to participating.

There are a few things you can do to commit to keeping information private. You can secure confidentiality by removing all identifying information from your report or offer to pseudonymise the data later. Data pseudonymisation entails replacing any identifying information about participants with pseudonymous or false identifiers.

Preparation prior to participation

If there is something you would like participants to read, study, or prepare beforehand, be sure to let them know well in advance. It’s also a good idea to call them the day before to ensure they will still be participating.

Consider conducting a tech check prior to the arrival of your participants, and note any environmental or external factors that could affect the mood of the group that day. Be sure that you are organised and ready, as a stressful atmosphere can be distracting and counterproductive.

Starting the focus group

Welcome individuals to the focus group by introducing the topic, yourself, and your co-moderator, and go over any ground rules or suggestions for a successful discussion. It’s important to make your participants feel at ease and forthcoming with their responses.

Consider starting out with an icebreaker, which will allow participants to relax and settle into the space a bit. Your icebreaker can be related to your study topic or not; it’s just an exercise to get participants talking.

Leading the discussion

Once you start asking your questions, try to keep response times equal between participants. Take note of the most and least talkative members of the group, as well as any participants with particularly strong or dominant personalities.

You can ask less talkative members questions directly to encourage them to participate or ask participants questions by name to even the playing field. Feel free to ask participants to elaborate on their answers or to give an example.

As a moderator, strive to remain neutral. Refrain from reacting to responses, and be aware of your body language (e.g., nodding, raising eyebrows). Active listening skills, such as parroting back answers or asking for clarification, are good methods to encourage participation and signal that you’re listening.

Many focus groups offer a monetary incentive for participants. Depending on your research budget, this is a nice way to show appreciation for their time and commitment. To keep everyone feeling fresh, consider offering snacks or drinks as well.

After concluding your focus group, you and your co-moderator should debrief, recording initial impressions of the discussion as well as any highlights, issues, or immediate conclusions you’ve drawn.

The next step is to transcribe and clean your data . Assign each participant a number or pseudonym for organisational purposes. Transcribe the recordings and conduct content analysis to look for themes or categories of responses. The categories you choose can then form the basis for reporting your results.

Just like other research methods, focus groups come with advantages and disadvantages.

They are fairly straightforward to organise and results have strong face validity .
They are usually inexpensive, even if you compensate participant.
A focus group is much less time-consuming than a survey or experiment , and you get immediate results.
Focus group results are often more comprehensible and intuitive than raw data.

Disadvantages

It can be difficult to assemble a truly representative sample. Focus groups are generally not considered externally valid due to their small sample sizes.
Due to the small sample size, you cannot ensure the anonymity of respondents, which may influence their desire to speak freely.
Depth of analysis can be a concern, as it can be challenging to get honest opinions on controversial topics.
There is a lot of room for error in the data analysis and high potential for observer dependency in drawing conclusions. You have to be careful not to cherry-pick responses to fit a prior conclusion.

A focus group is a research method that brings together a small group of people to answer questions in a moderated setting. The group is chosen due to predefined demographic traits, and the questions are designed to shed light on a topic of interest. It is one of four types of interviews .

As a rule of thumb, questions related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups . Take your time formulating strong questions, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can bias your responses.

The four most common types of interviews are:

Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

Social desirability bias is the tendency for interview participants to give responses that will be viewed favourably by the interviewer or other participants. It occurs in all types of interviews and surveys , but is most common in semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias can be mitigated by ensuring participants feel at ease and comfortable sharing their views. Make sure to pay attention to your own body language and any physical or verbal cues, such as nodding or widening your eyes.

This type of bias in research can also occur in observations if the participants know they’re being observed. They might alter their behaviour accordingly.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

George, T. (2023, February 06). What Is a Focus Group? | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 29 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/focus-groups/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, structured interview | definition, guide & examples, semi-structured interview | definition, guide & examples, unstructured interview | definition, guide & examples.

Open access
Published: 24 April 2024

Cancer care coordination in rural Hawaii: a focus group study

Shin Chang 1 , 2 ,
Michelle Liu 2 ,
Christa Braun-Inglis 2 ,
Randall Holcombe 2 , 3 &
Izumi Okado 2

BMC Health Services Research volume 24 , Article number: 518 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

124 Accesses

Metrics details

Rural populations consistently experience a disproportionate burden of cancer, including higher incidence and mortality rates, compared to the urban populations. Factors that are thought to contribute to these disparities include limited or lack of access to care and challenges with care coordination (CC). In Hawaii, many patients residing in rural areas experience unique challenges with CC as they require inter-island travel for their cancer treatment. In this focus group study, we explored the specific challenges and positive experiences that impact the CC in rural Hawaii cancer patients.

We conducted two semi-structured focus group interviews with cancer patients receiving active treatment for any type of cancer ( n = 8). The participants were recruited from the rural areas of Hawaii, specifically the Hawaii county and Kauai. Rural was defined using the Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCA; rural ≥ 4). The focus group discussions were facilitated using open-ended questions to explore patients’ experiences with CC.

Content analysis revealed that 47% of the discussions were related to CC-related challenges, including access to care (27.3%), insurance (9.1%), inter-island travel (6.1%), and medical literacy (4.5%). Other major themes from the discussions focused on facilitators of CC (30.3%), including the use of electronic patient portal (12.1%), team-based approach (9.1%), family caregiver support (4.5%), and local clinic staff (4.5%).

Our findings indicate that there are notable challenges in rural patients’ experiences regarding their cancer care coordination. Specific factors such as the lack of oncologist and oncology services, fragmented system, and the lack of local general medical providers contribute to problems with access to care. However, there are also positive factors found through the help of facilitators of CC, notability the use of electronic patient portal, team-based approach, family caregiver support, and local clinic staff. These findings highlight potential targets of interventions to improve cancer care delivery for rural patients.

Trial Registration

Not required.

Peer Review reports

Rural populations have higher cancer mortality rates compared to urban populations [ 1 , 2 ]. Rural-urban disparities in cancer health outcomes are partly attributed to challenges with cancer care delivery, specifically care coordination (CC) in rural areas [ 1 , 3 ]. Cancer CC is essential to high-quality cancer care [ 4 ], and since cancer CC in rural areas is affected by challenges such as limited access to providers and health services [ 5 ], it is important to gain further understanding of rural patients’ perceptions of cancer CC.

There are notable CC challenges in rural areas including limited access to specialty medical services and long travel distances to care. According to a 2022 data published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), only 10.5% of active oncologists practiced in rural areas, making oncologist shortage an obstacle to care access for rural cancer patients. Beyond challenges in accessing oncologists, there are other barriers to access to cancer care including the scarcity of hospitals in rural areas, limited access to health information sources, and longer travel distances needed to access health services [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. There are also other notable disadvantages faced by rural populations compared with urban populations. Studies have shown that rural populations have higher poverty and unemployment rates, a greater number of uninsured residents, and lower educational attainment and health literacy [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. These disadvantages, along with the lack care of access, may contribute to the higher cancer mortality rates found in rural populations.

Limited prior studies have compared the differences in cancer CC between rural and urban populations [ 5 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. Some studies reported more challenges with CC in rural communities compared with the urban due to the limited access to health care providers and community services, fewer providers of specialized care, and lack of effective communication between specialist and primary care [ 5 , 13 ]. In contrast, studies by Mollica et al. reported more positive perceptions of CC among rural patients getting care quickly compared to urban patients [ 14 , 15 ]. Some potential explanations regarding their results of more positive CC experience among rural patients include different expectations to care access in rural residents compared to urban residents, longer wait times for urban residents, and selection bias in Medicare beneficiaries. Overall, research regarding cancer CC in rural populations is limited, and there are major gaps in understanding the perceptions of CC among rural cancer patients.

Our study addresses the knowledge gap of cancer CC in rural patients, specifically in rural Hawaii, by exploring the perceptions of CC through a qualitative study. Rural Hawaii patients face challenges in seeking care such as physician shortages [ 17 ] and lack of specialty care in local clinics. Assessments on the Hawaii physician workforce prior to the COVID-19 pandemic showed that there was a high percentage of physician shortage in Hawaii, especially on the islands that are mostly rural [ 18 ]. Moreover, recent reports also estimated that 10% of providers have retired or closed their practices since the start of the pandemic [ 17 ]. With locum physicians providing oncology care in many rural areas in Hawaii, the limited medical resources and specialty cancer care in rural Hawaii mean that many cancer patients residing on the more rural islands have to travel by air to the more urban Oahu island to obtain cancer treatment. The lack of available health professionals and need for air-travel present as some of the unique barriers for rural patients in Hawaii. However, there is no prior research on how these barriers are perceived by these patients.

In this qualitative study, we explored the specific challenges and positive experiences that impact the CC in rural Hawaii cancer patients. Rural populations in Hawaii are often excluded in US population-based studies, and this study contributes new knowledge in an understudied population. These findings can be used to further improve CC in rural areas in the future.

Participants

In this study, we conducted two semi-structured focus group interviews with a subset of patients ( n = 8) from a previous care coordination survey study. The care coordination study has been described elsewhere [ 19 ]. Participants were recruited from rural areas of Hawaii, specifically the Hawaii county and Kauai, and were receiving active treatment for any type of cancer. Rural was defined using the Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCA; rural ≥ 4). The focus group participants were identified through a supplemental questionnaire in the previous study that probed for interest in focus group participation. The study was approved by the University of Hawaii Institutional Review Board.

Study design

The research team coordinated two focus groups ( n = 4 each) based on the times and days convenient to the participants. Prior to the start of the focus group discussions, verbal consent was again obtained from all participants. The interviews were conducted virtually over zoom (R.F.H., C.B., and I.O.) due to the pandemic and to allow remote participation. The interview questions were developed by the research team prior to focus groups and encompassed open-ended questions designed to explore care coordination (see supplement for the discussion guide). All focus group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, with each participant’s comment anonymously attributed.

Qualitative analysis

Analysis of the focus group interviews was conducted using content analysis. First, the researchers independently coded the transcripts to identify important aspects across the two focus group discussions. Next, the team compared, analyzed, and refined the codes until the main themes were identified. The themes were discussed until a consensus was reached. Subthemes were also identified, with the hierarchy determined and named appropriately. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion (S.C., M.L., and I.O.).

Demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1 . A majority of the participants were female (87.5%) and the mean age was 62.3. The participants were racially diverse, with 62.5% any Asian, 37.5% any White, 12.5% any Native Hawaiian, and 12.5% others. Half of the participants were breast cancer patients, while the remaining half consisted of GI and other cancer patients. There was representation across all cancer stages, with 75% of the participants in the early stages and 25% in Stage IV.

The content analysis (Fig. 1 ) revealed that almost half (47.0%) of the discussions were connected to CC-related challenges. Within CC-related challenges, access to care was the most common subtheme (27.3%), with the lack of oncologists and oncology services identified as the major contributing factor (61.1%). Multiple participants described having to be seen by several different oncologists throughout their treatment, almost to the point of having a “revolving door” of physicians (See Table 2 ). They mentioned that it was difficult having to be treated by physicians who did not know them well, especially because every physician has a different process and approach to care. Other contributing factors that limited access to care included delays in treatment and diagnosis (16.7%), the fragmented system (11.1%), for which patients had to undergo care across multiple healthcare organizations, and the lack of local general medical providers (11.1%). The participants discussed how the long wait times for appointments, different provider networks, and difficulty accessing local general medical providers contributed to their worries about cancer progression.

A & B Themes and subthemes, shown by proportions of focus group discussion

Besides access to care, other subthemes within CC-related challenges included insurance (9.1%), travel (6.1%), and medical literacy (4.5%). Some participants described issues with getting insurance-approval for treatment and inter-island travel, which either caused delays in treatment or led to high out-of-pocket costs. For other participants, the inter-island travel was difficult beyond its costs due to troubles coordinating appointment times and the time commitment required. Medical literacy may also have been a challenge, as some patients discussed their confusion regarding the roles of oncologists. These participants commented that it was strange that they were mostly visiting their oncologists rather than their primary care providers (PCPs), and questioned why their PCPs were not more involved in their cancer care.

Facilitators of CC was another major theme (30.3%) from the focus group discussions. The use of electronic patient portal (12.1%) was helpful for the 3 participants who had access to it. These participants highlighted that the portal allowed them to keep track of their health records and more easily communicate with the healthcare team. In another part of the discussion, team-based approach (9.1%) seemed to have led to a strongly positive cancer treatment experience. Other facilitators of CC included family caregiver support (4.5%), which involved patients having family members to help communicate with the care team, and local clinic staff (4.5%), especially the regular staff that are part of the clinics and infusion centers. Participants described these local staff as members of the care team who are “constant” in their care journeys and who became like family members to them.

At the end of each focus group discussion, the research team asked the participants about suggestions or advice for improving care coordination. Most participants emphasized the need for more full-time, permanent oncologists that can serve on the islands, specifically in rural areas. Besides the challenges of having a different new oncologist for nearly every visit, they mentioned that it was difficult to be kept in the dark as to why the oncologists kept leaving. They thought that it would be helpful if the medical systems were more transparent regarding physician changes, so that they could identify the local physicians with whom they could work with longer. Multiple participants also commented about the importance of self-advocacy, highlighting it as an essential component that improved and sped-up their treatment process. They described self-advocacy as asking questions, proactively reaching out to the providers for help, and keeping the care team updated, which together helped to reduce delays to care and improve their outcomes.

The remaining discussion contained other themes (15.1%). Some participants shared personal history (12.1%) regarding their cancer diagnoses, symptoms, and treatment process. Others described COVID-19 related challenges (3.0%), such as feeling isolated during COVID and having to travel under COVID-restrictions. Quotes from the focus group participants are shown in Table 2 , supporting the qualitative analysis.

In this focus group study, we explored the specific challenges and positive experiences that impact the CC in rural Hawaii cancer patients. Overall, our findings illuminate challenges such as limited access to care, inter-island travel, and insurance-related issues as described by rural cancer patients regarding their CC. Our findings also suggest that there are facilitators of CC such as electronic patient portals, family caregiver support, and local clinic staff, along with the use of a team-based approach, that contribute to more positive experiences that may help to mitigate some of these challenges.

Our results demonstrate that access to care was a major component of CC-related challenges, with the lack of oncologists and oncology services found as the most frequently mentioned contributing factor. These findings are consistent with previous research that reported fewer practicing oncologists and general medical providers in rural areas [ 20 , 21 , 22 ], highlighting the need for more permanent oncologists and providers in rural areas. It is also interesting to note that the high turnover of oncologists was mentioned by the participants. Similar to suggestions made by the participants, further studies are needed to illuminate and address the factors that contribute to oncologist shortages in rural Hawaii.

Other access-related challenges included the lack of local general medical providers and the fragmented care system. Given that previous studies indicate that primary care physicians play a vital role in cancer CC by managing comorbid conditions [ 23 ], the pandemic is likely to have further exacerbated the high-turnover and challenges with finding general medical providers felt by the participants. Furthermore, other studies have also shown that fragmented cancer care results in longer time to treatment and increased mortality while potentiating existing socioeconomic disparities [ 24 , 25 ]. Some of the participants were worried about these delays because they feared further cancer progression. Their worries are not unwarranted, as previous studies have shown a significant association between cancer care delays and increased mortality [ 26 ].

In addition to limited access to care, other subthemes found under CC-related challenges include travel and insurance-related issues. Many participants faced limited cancer care on their islands, were not able to get the care they required, and therefore had to travel inter-island to access the specialized treatment they needed. However, inter-island travel presented with its own unique challenges. For participants whose insurance did not cover the travel costs, the costs for travel were significant, as they needed to pay out of pocket for airfare, and air travel is the only mode of inter-island travel in Hawaii. Utilizing inter-island travels for care also meant extended time commitments and time off from work for those who were employed. Overall, these travel challenges likely further increased barriers to cancer care for rural patients. These results were supported in prior research that showed the association of increased travel burden with decreased care access for lung, breast, and colon cancer patients [ 27 , 28 , 29 ]. Travel distance is also associated with increased financial barriers, especially for those with lower socioeconomic status and inadequate insurance coverage in the rural population [ 30 , 31 ]. Altogether, the longer travel distances faced by rural patients present as a critical health barrier for rural patients. Beyond the financial difficulties, it is important to note that cancer treatment costs can often lead to catastrophic financial burden on the patients, regardless of rural and urban residence, causing what is often termed “financial toxicity” [ 30 , 31 ]. Further interventions are needed to address these financial disparities faced by cancer patients.

Lastly, patients’ lack of understanding of CC processes and the people involved in oncology care was also found as a source of challenge. Some participants did not understand why they were referred to oncologists rather than continuing care with their general providers. Further communication and explanation from the general providers about the roles of oncologists could have alleviated these confusions for patients and ensured a smoother transition in their care.

Although many specific challenges hinder rural cancer patients’ experiences with CC, our findings also revealed the strong positive impact of facilitators on patients’ CC experience. First, the participants who had access to electronic patient portals found that they could easily access their health information and communicate with care team members. By asking questions and keeping their care team up to date through the portals, they were able to better self-advocate. This suggests that electronic patient portals may help to mitigate some of the challenges caused by the long distance between rural cancer patients and their cancer care provider. However, limitations exist because the portals were not available to all our participants due to the differing locations they were at. Similarly, not all of the clinics have these systems.

Second, our findings suggest that team-based approach seemed to have led to a positive experience. It is imperative to note, however, that the comments about the team-based approach came from only one participant, the only one who was receiving an HMO-based care. Although this result may not by generalizable, a systemic review showed that team-based care may improve patient satisfaction [ 32 ]. Third, the presence of local clinic staff also contributed to positive cancer care experiences for the participants. Given the “revolving door” of oncologists, the responses given by the participants suggest that having stable and long-term relationships with the local clinic staff made participants feel like they have constant team members who will keep being a part of their cancer journeys. This is in strong contrast with the long list of oncologists they’ve seen, most of whom they can barely remember the name of. Finally, consistent with prior research, family caregivers’ support also helped improve the cancer CC experience for patients [ 33 ]. This is likely because family caregivers can help to alleviate the emotional toll of cancer on patients while also helping to manage the health care needs and CC-related tasks for patients.

There are some limitations to this study. Firstly, the participants for the focus groups were selected based on voluntary participation. It cannot be ruled out that positive or negative experiences may have prompted these participants to be more willing to participate in this study. Secondly, this study is composed of two focus groups, with an overall sample size of 8 participants. It should be noted that the study was originally composed of three focus groups. However, the third focus group could not be conducted because many participants called in sick or were otherwise unavailable. While the sample size was small, participant comments generally echoed similar concerns and suggestions, and rural residents of Hawaii share similar care coordination-related issues as other rural areas including long travel distance to care, higher proportions of residents with lower socioeconomic status, and limited access to specialty oncology services. Lastly, the focus group interviews were all conducted virtually to allow participants to join remotely, due to the pandemic and to avoid the need for inter-island travel. This could mean limited information about nonverbal cues such as body language and eye contact that may have been more discernible from a traditional in-person interview.

Despite certain limitations, our study is significant because there are limited prior studies about how specific CC processes impact rural cancer care. Furthermore, this is the first focus group study regarding CC conducted with the rural Hawaii population. Hawaii is often excluded in US population-based studies, and this study provides insights into unique challenges with cancer care coordination for rural Hawaii patients. This study can help inform areas of improvements for cancer CC needed to help decrease disparities and increase survival in rural cancer patients.

Conclusions

Our findings explored the challenges in rural Hawaii cancer patients’ CC experiences. Access to care presented as a major challenge due to the lack of oncologist and oncology services, limited local general medical providers, and the fragmented care system. Other challenges that influenced the cancer CC experience include travel issues and insurance-related troubles. We also identified facilitators of CC that are likely to provide positive CC experiences, including the use of electronic patient portals, team-based approach to care, support from family caregivers, and the presence of local clinic staff. Overall, our findings highlight potential targets of interventions to improve cancer care delivery for rural patients.

Data availability

The data collected and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Any information made available will be fully de-identified.

Abbreviations

Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes

Care Coordination

Primary Care Providers

Henley SJ, Anderson RN, Thomas CC, Massetti GM, Peaker B, Richardson LC, Invasive Cancer I. 2004–2013, and deaths, 2006–2015, in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan counties — United States. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2017;66(14):1–13.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Henley SJ, Jemal A. Rural cancer control: bridging the chasm in geographic health inequity. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018;27(11):1248–51.

Blake KD, Moss JL, Gaysynsky A, Srinivasan S, Croyle RT. Making the case for investment in Rural Cancer Control: an analysis of Rural Cancer incidence, mortality, and Funding trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(7):992–7.

McDonald KM, Sundaram V, Bravata DM, Lewis R, Lin N, Kraft SA et al. Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies (Vol. 7: Care Coordination) [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2007 [cited 2023 Jun 18]. (AHRQ Technical Reviews). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44015/ .

Walsh J, Harrison JD, Young JM, Butow PN, Solomon MJ, Masya L. What are the current barriers to effective cancer care coordination? A qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10(1):132.

Douthit N, Kiv S, Dwolatzky T, Biswas S. Exposing some important barriers to health care access in the rural USA. Public Health. 2015;129(6):611–20.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Chen X, Orom H, Hay JL, Waters EA, Schofield E, Li Y, et al. Differences in Rural and Urban Health Information Access and Use. J Rural Health. 2019;35(3):405–17.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Chan L, Hart LG, Goodman DC. Geographic Access to Health Care for Rural Medicare beneficiaries. J Rural Health. 2006;22(2):140–6.

Blumenthal SJ, Kagen J. The effects of Socioeconomic Status on Health in Rural and Urban America. JAMA. 2002;287(1):109.

Popat S. The 2014 Update of the Rural-Urban Chartbook. 2014.

USDA ERS -. Rural Education [Internet]. [cited 2023 May 25]. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/employment-education/rural-education/ .

Durcinoska I, Young JM, Solomon MJ. Patterns and predictors of colorectal cancer care coordination: a population-based survey of Australian patients. Cancer. 2017;123(2):319–26.

Street TD, Somoray K, Richards GC, Lacey SJ. Continuity of care for patients with chronic conditions from rural or remote Australia: a systematic review. Aust J Rural Health. 2019;27(3):196–202.

Mollica MA, Buckenmaier SS, Halpern MT, McNeel TS, Weaver SJ, Doose M, et al. Perceptions of care coordination among older adult cancer survivors: a SEER-CAHPS study. J Geriatr Oncol. 2021;12(3):446–52.

Mollica MA, Weaver KE, McNeel TS, Kent EE. Examining urban and rural differences in perceived timeliness of care among cancer patients: a SEER-CAHPS study. Cancer. 2018;124(15):3257–65.

Powell RE, Doty A, Casten RJ, Rovner BW, Rising KL. A qualitative analysis of interprofessional healthcare team members’ perceptions of patient barriers to healthcare engagement. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:493.

Withy K, Joo K, Potter C. Hawai‘i Physician Workforce Assessment 2020. Hawaii J Health Soc Welf. 2022;81(4 Suppl 2):4–10.

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Withy K. Annual Report on Findings from the Hawai’i Physician Workforce Assessment Project. 2019.

Okado I, Liu-Duerr M, Hewitt T, Elhajj C, Nishiyama S, Holcombe RF. Perceptions of cancer care coordination among rural patients in Hawaii. JCO. 2022;40(16suppl):e18553–18553.

Article Google Scholar

Hung P, Deng S, Zahnd WE, Adams SA, Olatosi B, Crouch EL, et al. Geographic disparities in residential proximity to colorectal and cervical cancer care providers. Cancer. 2020;126(5):1068–76.

Levit LA, Byatt L, Lyss AP, Paskett ED, Levit K, Kirkwood K, et al. Closing the Rural Cancer Care Gap: three institutional approaches. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020;16(7):422–30.

Kirkwood MK, Bruinooge SS, Goldstein MA, Bajorin DF, Kosty MP. Enhancing the American Society of Clinical Oncology workforce information system with geographic distribution of oncologists and comparison of data sources for the number of practicing oncologists. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(1):32–8.

Klabunde CN, Ambs A, Keating NL, He Y, Doucette WR, Tisnado D, et al. The role of Primary Care Physicians in Cancer Care. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(9):1029–36.

Hester CA, Karbhari N, Rich NE, Augustine M, Mansour JC, Polanco PM, et al. Effect of fragmentation of cancer care on treatment use and survival in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer. 2019;125(19):3428–36.

Choi DW, Kim SJ, Kim DJ, Chang YJ, Kim DW, Han KT. Does fragmented cancer care affect survival? Analysis of gastric cancer patients using national insurance claim data. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1566.

Hanna TP, King WD, Thibodeau S, Jalink M, Paulin GA, Harvey-Jones E, et al. Mortality due to cancer treatment delay: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020;371:m4087.

Longacre CF, Neprash HT, Shippee ND, Tuttle TM, Virnig BA, Travel. Treatment Choice, and survival among breast Cancer patients: a Population-based analysis. Women’s Health Rep. 2021;2(1):1–10.

Obrochta CA Jr, Murphy HP, Nara JD, Trinidad A, Araneta D MR (Happy), editors. The impact of patient travel time on disparities in treatment for early stage lung cancer in California. PLOS ONE. 2022;17(10):e0272076.

Massarweh NN, Chiang YJ, Xing Y, Chang GJ, Haynes AB, You YN, et al. Association between Travel Distance and metastatic disease at diagnosis among patients with Colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(9):942–8.

Yousuf Zafar S. Financial toxicity of Cancer Care: it’s time to Intervene. JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(5):djv370.

Carrera PM, Kantarjian HM, Blinder VS. The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment. Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(2):153–65.

Will KK, Johnson ML, Lamb G. Team-based care and patient satisfaction in the hospital setting: a systematic review. J Patient Cent Res Rev. 2019;6(2):158–71.

Okado I, Cassel K, Pagano I, Holcombe RF. Assessing patients’ perceptions of Cancer Care Coordination in a community-based setting. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020;16(8):e726–33.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This project was funded in part by F32HS027286-01A1 (PI: Okado) from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), U.S. Department of Health and Human. Services (HHS) and the UH Cancer Center.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

John A Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, 651 Ilalo St, 96813, Honolulu, HI, USA

University of Hawai‘i Cancer Center, 701 Ilalo St. 6th Floor, 96813, Honolulu, HI, USA

Shin Chang, Michelle Liu, Christa Braun-Inglis, Randall Holcombe & Izumi Okado

University of Vermont Cancer Center, 149 Beaumont Av. Burlington, 05405, VT, USA

Randall Holcombe

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R.H. and I.O. designed the focus group studies presented in the manuscript. R.H., C.B. and I.O. conducted the focus group interviews. S.C., M.L. and I.O. analyzed the qualitative data from the focus groups. S.C. drafted the full manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Izumi Okado .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All procedures performed in our studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committees and with the 1964 Helskinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The studies were reviewed and approved by the University of Hawaii Institutional Review Board. The focus group interviews were conducted online, and verbal informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in the study. This study was conducted in 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic; based on the safety requirements that were in place at the time of data collection, the Institutional Review Board approved the use of verbal consent for this study.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Chang, S., Liu, M., Braun-Inglis, C. et al. Cancer care coordination in rural Hawaii: a focus group study. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 518 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10916-1

Download citation

Received : 10 August 2023

Accepted : 27 March 2024

Published : 24 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10916-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Care coordination
Qualitative study
Focus group
Rural Hawaii

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

General enquiries: [email protected]

Prescription Plans Focus Group

Pay: up to $80

Gender: Men and Women

Space is limited! Signup today!

Description, calling all prescription plan members (ages 26+) earn $80 sharing your experiences (online interview).

Do you have a prescription plan and want to make a difference? We’re seeking participants aged 26+ to participate in a paid online interview about their experiences with prescription plans, and your insights matter!

Here’s the exciting opportunity to share your thoughts and potentially earn $80 for a convenient 60-minute online interview!

Make your voice heard! Help improve prescription plan services by sharing your experiences and suggestions. Join from the comfort of home! Participate in the interview using your laptop or desktop computer. Get rewarded for your time! You’ll receive $80 as a thank you for your valuable insights. Think of it as a chance to:

Influence the future of prescription plans! Help make accessing medications easier for everyone! Get rewarded for sharing your experiences! ($80) Ready to share your knowledge and potentially earn extra cash? Head over to our sign-up page and take the survey to see if you qualify!

Don’t miss out on this opportunity to make a difference! Sign up today!

Please note: This study is seeking prescription plan members aged 26 and over. The interview will be conducted online using your laptop/desktop computer. Compensation is $80 for 60 minutes of your time.

Location(s):

Men and Women

Posted Date:

L&E Research

Expiration date:

May 8, 2024

Payout Amount up to:

Parents on Medical Conditions Focus Group

May 13, 2024

Payout Amount up to $75

Cleaning Supplies Focus Group

Payout Amount up to $150

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

IMAGES

Focus Groups
Qualitative Research: In-Depth Interviews or Focus Groups? Which Method
How to conduct Focus group interviews
Focus Group: What It Is & How to Conduct It + Examples
Using In-Depth Interviews and Focus Groups for Your Market Research
Pros and cons of focus groups vs. interviews: an in-depth review

VIDEO

4.4 MARKET RESEARCH / IB BUSINESS MANAGEMENT / primary, secondary, sampling, quantitative, qual
What is a focus group? ($100 side hustle!)
FOCUS GROUP uma técnica de pesquisa que pode te ajudar nas organizações
qualitative research "Focus Groups" part1
Why You Need to Focus on Research
Primary Marketing Research

COMMENTS

Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the
A focus group is a moderated group discussion on a pre-defined topic, for research purposes. 28,29 While not aligned to a particular qualitative methodology (for example, grounded theory or ...
What is a Focus Group
Step 1: Choose your topic of interest. Step 2: Define your research scope and hypotheses. Step 3: Determine your focus group questions. Step 4: Select a moderator or co-moderator. Step 5: Recruit your participants. Step 6: Set up your focus group. Step 7: Host your focus group.
Chapter 12. Focus Groups
"Using Focus Groups to Research Sensitive Issues: Insights from Group Interviews on Nursing in the Northern Ireland 'Troubles.'" International Journal of Qualitative Methods 6(4), 1-19. A great example of using focus groups productively around emotional or sensitive topics. ... A focus group interview is an interview with a small ...
Focus Group Interviews in Child, Youth, and Parent Research: An
Qualitative research methods have an important role in social science and health-related research. In particular, focus groups and one-on-one interviews are state-of-the-art tools for the development of reliable and valid surveys and questionnaires (Baars, Chaplin, Koopmann, & DISABKIDS Group, 2006; Millward, 2012; Streiner & Normann, 2003).Within the fields of social science and health ...
Focus Groups: The Definitive Guide
Based on your research goal or goals, this guide should include a list of focus group questions or topics you want to cover during the session, and strike a good balance between structured and flexible - so you can gather the data you need while not discouraging spontaneous conversation. 6. Conduct the focus group.
A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus
Traditionally, focus group research is "a way of collecting qualitative data, which—essentially—involves engaging a small number of people in an informal group discussion (or discussions), 'focused' around a particular topic or set of issues" (Wilkinson, 2004, p. 177).Social science researchers in general and qualitative researchers in particular often rely on focus groups to ...
What Is a Focus Group?
A focus group is a qualitative research method that involves facilitating a small group discussion with participants who share common characteristics or experiences that are relevant to the research topic. The goal is to gain insights through group conversation and observation of dynamics. In a focus group: A moderator asks questions and leads a group of typically 6 to 12 pre-screened ...
How to Interview and Conduct Focus Groups
This guide shows students and early-career researchers how to prepare for and conduct interviews and focus groups. This book shows researchers how to plan for and conduct interviews and focus groups, and how to use them in various qualitative research designs. It also explains how to code, analyze, and report the data once it's been gathered.
Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups
Focus groups are a form of group interview that capitalises on communication between research participants in order to generate data. Although group interviews are often used simply as a quick and convenient way to collect data from several people simultaneously, focus groups explicitly use group interaction as part of the method.
Interviews and Focus Groups
Focus Group Interviews. Focus group research did not have a visible presence in the social sciences until the 1980s and 1990s (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015; Morgan, 1997 ), where it was taken up in feminist research, communication and media studies, sociology, and social psychology (Wilkinson, 2004 ).
Zooming into Focus Groups: Strategies for Qualitative Research in the
Qualitative research focuses on exploring individuals' perspectives related to specific research questions, issues, or activities ( 1 ). Frequently, structured interviews or focus groups are tools employed for data collection for qualitative research. In-person interviews are ideal, although phone and digital alternatives may be considered ...
What Are Focus Group Interviews?
A focus group is a technique in qualitative research to collect data through group discussions. A group of five to 10 people answers questions on a specific topic in a moderated setting. The person who runs the focus group is the moderator. They're in charge of leading the members through the discussion and taking notes of the group's opinions.
Focus Groups
Definition: A focus group is a qualitative research method used to gather in-depth insights and opinions from a group of individuals about a particular product, service, concept, or idea. The focus group typically consists of 6-10 participants who are selected based on shared characteristics such as demographics, interests, or experiences.
Types of Interviews in Research
Focus groups can provide more nuanced and unfiltered feedback than individual interviews and are easier to organize than experiments or large surveys. However, their small size leads to low external validity and the temptation as a researcher to "cherry-pick" responses that fit your hypotheses. A focus group may be a good fit for your ...
Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a
Qualitative researchers must often decide whether to use focus groups or individual interviews to elicit experiences, beliefs and opinions from study participants. ... Participants were randomized into either a focus group arm or individual interview arm, and were asked the same open-ended questions about their health-care seeking behavior ...
Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the
The most common methods of data collection used in qualitative research are interviews and focus groups. While these are primarily conducted face-to-face, the ongoing evolution of digital technologies, such as video chat and online forums, has further transformed these methods of data collection. This paper therefore discusses interviews and ...
Using interview excerpts to facilitate focus group discussion
Additionally, as the focus group questions build on interview data rather than asking participants the exact same questions that were asked in interviews, the technique does not allow for a direct comparison of results between interview and focus group data as others have done (Guest et al., 2017; Kruger et al., 2019). Rather, data collection ...
Focus-group interview and data analysis
Data analysis Qualitative research and, in particular, focus-group inter- views generate large amounts of data, which tend to overwhelm novice as well as experienced researchers. A 1h interview could easily take 5-6h to transcribe in full, leading to thirty to forty pages of transcripts. Thus, a central aim of data analysis, according to ...
Methodological Aspects of Focus Groups in Health Research
We performed qualitative content analysis on the interview data relating to recruitment, communication between the focus group participants, and appraisal of the focus group method. The interview data revealed aspects of the focus group method that are particularly relevant for health research and that should be considered in that context.
Full article: A Practical Guide to Focus-Group Research
View PDF. This article guides readers through the decisions and considerations involved in conducting focus-group research investigations into students' learning experiences. One previously published focus-group study is used as an illustrative example, along with other examples from the field of pedagogic research in geography higher education.
What Is a Focus Group?
Step 1: Choose your topic of interest. Step 2: Define your research scope and hypotheses. Step 3: Determine your focus group questions. Step 4: Select a moderator or co-moderator. Step 5: Recruit your participants. Step 6: Set up your focus group. Step 7: Host your focus group. Step 8: Analyse your data and report your results.
PDF Designing and Conducting Focus Group Interviews
Designing and Conducting Focus Group Interviews. Richard A. Krueger Professor and Evaluation Leader University of Minnesota 1954 Buford Ave. St. Paul, MN 55108. [email protected]. October 2002. Focus Group Interviewing --- Richard Krueger1. Characteristics of Focus Group Interviews.
What are Focus Group Interviews and Why Should I Conduct Them?
Now, focus groups interviews are the real unsung heroes of qualitative research, and I hope that by the end of this blog you will be able to appreciate how focus group interviews can positively affect your qualitative research study. But first, we will answer the question: What are focus group interviews? ... Focus group interviews give ...
Cancer care coordination in rural Hawaii: a focus group study
The focus group interviews were conducted online, and verbal informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in the study. This study was conducted in 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic; based on the safety requirements that were in place at the time of data collection, the Institutional Review Board approved the use of verbal ...
Prescription Plans Focus Group
Please note: This study is seeking prescription plan members aged 26 and over. The interview will be conducted online using your laptop/desktop computer. Compensation is $80 for 60 minutes of your time. Location (s): Multiple. Gender: Men and Women. Age Group: 26+.

Interviews and focus groups in qualitative research: an update for the digital age

Similar content being viewed by others

Interviews in the social sciences

Professionalism in dentistry: deconstructing common terminology

Overview of qualitative research

Types of interview

Conducting an interview

Box 1: Example of a topic guide

Focus groups

Focus group considerations

Focus group management

Author information

Corresponding author

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

This article is cited by

Perceptions and beliefs of community gatekeepers about genomic risk information in African cleft research

Assessment of women’s needs, wishes and preferences regarding interprofessional guidance on nutrition in pregnancy – a qualitative study

‘Baby mamas’ in Urban Ghana: an exploratory qualitative study on the factors influencing serial fathering among men in Accra, Ghana

Revolutionising dental technologies: a qualitative study on dental technicians’ perceptions of Artificial intelligence integration

Quick links

Chapter 12. Focus Groups

Focus Groups: What Are They and When to Use Them

How to Conduct a Focus Group Interview/Discussion

During the Focus Group

After the Focus Group

Advanced: Focus Groups on Sensitive Topics

Further Readings

Try Qualtrics for free

What is a focus group?

Focus group roles

When should a focus group be used?

New product or concept testing

Understanding customers better

Marketing and advertising

Exploratory research

When quantitative data isn’t enough

Types of focus groups

One-way focus groups

Two-way focus groups

Dual-moderator focus groups

Dueling-moderator focus groups

Respondent-moderator focus groups

Mini focus groups, dyads and triads

Remote focus groups

How to run a focus group: Step-by-step guide

1. Research and define your goal

2. Choose a moderator

3. Choose a location

4. Recruit the right participants

5. Create a discussion guide

6. Conduct the focus group

7. Debrief and iterate

8. Analyse and report on the findings

How many people should be in a focus group?

Focus groups vs in-depth interviews

The benefits of focus groups over in-depth interviews

The benefits of in-depth interviews over focus groups

Advantages and disadvantages of focus groups

Advantages of focus groups

Disadvantages of focus groups

Related resources

Thematic Analysis 11 min read

Search form

Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups

Rationale and uses of focus groups

Some potential sampling advantages with focus groups

Conducting a focus group study

RUNNING THE GROUPS

ANALYSIS AND WRITING UP

Interviews and Focus Groups

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter